Thetownend.com

Fuck me if I hear one more stupid yank go on about how jebus made the earth in 10 days and the world is only 10000 years old I swear I am going to kill them.

If the world is only 10000 years old how do they explain stoneage man?
If jebus made the world why did he make inca's etc who all worshiped other gods?
etc etc etc etc etc etc

just gt a grip you fucking loons GOD IS NOT REAL!

its one of your better posts to be honest

You should get down to Portsmouth - they've just opened up a creationist museum. Creationism is a growth industry. As for stone age man, I saw enough Saturday so that certainly doesn't do Darwin's argument much good. In fact if Darwin had lived in Leeds I very much doubt he would have come up with his theory. Mind you, if there is a God, then why would he come up with anything as stupid and useless as a Leeds fan.

creationism is a bit mental. still, it could be worse - muslim extremists kill people and blow things up, christian extremists just try and debunk science and fail miserably.

i got no beef with religion though.

I wish DV still looked a bit like Jesus

creationism is clearly nuts. But not as nuts as certain sections of out Yank friends wanting it taught in schools as part of Science curriculum.

Sure teach in in RE so it can get equal mocking billing with the other religions, but not science.

so do i  :(

Is any one gonna stand up for jebus? clearly not as the god sqaud postion is stupid!

This does of course not mean that I am predjuce against the chirstian faith indeed I hold all relgion in the same contempt.

Hmm, religion, my previously favourite ranting subject.

Meh, i barely feel it worthy of debate to be honest.

But yeah, creationsim is fucking dumb. The coolest question is (as sonic will know having recommended a book to me), who created God?

I don't regard religion with contempt - each to their own. I'm as atheist as it gets and personally think creationism should be regarded in the same way as the tooth fairy and Father Christmas. I am, however, tolerant of all religions as long as it is not rammed down my throat. If it gives people comfort then great. Its only the lunatic fringe of each religion that is a problem in a similar way that not all Town fans are hooligans but there are a small minority that are.
If a school tried to teach creationism in a science lesson at any of my childrens schools then I'd withdraw them from lessons.  
Its there in America and is already being taught in science lessons in some schools in England - particularly Moslem schools. It ain't going to go away.

I'm Jedi.

Christianity: The belief that a Jewish cosmic zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree.

You know when you put it like that it all sounds so rational. I might start going to church.

And also kill people and blow things up (Nigeria, Indonesia, US abortion clinics etc). Their PR machine just isn't as good at publicising it as the jihadis

i'm a jedi too.
 batch, god is taught as a fact to kids in british schools from the age of 4.

Us Jedi's will have the respect that we deserve soon arriba, because the Large Hydron Collider is going to find the Higgs Boson which after investigation turns out to be 'the force', therefore proving that jedianity is fact.

It will also make others aware of The dastardly Sith and their evil wiley ways, after which the likes of you and I will be called upon to defend our feeble non-Jedi brethren from the Sith.

May the force be with you.

 Granny's Garden...?? No wonder JFW loves it

Only took them 7 days apparently.

Wasn't Higgs the Bosun on the Bounty ?

did i?

if god is morrissey, then mr and mrs morrissey created god

Six, Nev, they put their feet up on the seventh day.

Humans.  To make sense of a world they did not understand.

As I've already said before on here, I'm a Christian. I expect you'll all be wanting me to bite to this thread and go nuts, so I won't  :)

I can see why people find creationism crazy, I'll admit it took me ages to accept and obviously, like pretty much every other Christian I know, I realise that there are unanswered questions surrounding it. Sounds like I'm digging a hole for myself here!

The reason I believe in it is that I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and pretty much every other part of having faith as a Christian has to come from that point. Either he did or he didn't. If he did rise, as he predicted, he was surely the fulfilment of many an Old Testament prophecy and all the other things he promised can be taken as truth. And he said he was the son of God - th God who created the earth.

Obviously, if he didn't rise then he was wrong in predicting his own resurrection and therefore cannot be trusted with anything else he said.

I await your angry mobbish "I'm right you're wrong" responses  :)

fiar play reeves.the fact is that nothing can 100% be proven for any of the theories of our existance.it's just that the god one gets more far fetched as time goes by with discoveries that are being made.

I have always been envious of people with a faith r4e, and so you wont find me slating you.

but let me ask you a question: Do you seriously and 100% not believe in evolution?

What about science in general and what do you feel about the LHC?

I asked an asian scotsman what his religous beliefs were,he replied ima Hindu.....and whats a Hindu i asked
Lay eggs was his reply.

On a serious note,while not a very religious person i often go to churches for some tranquility while on my travels.

Most Christians don't take The Old Testament literally and don't believe in The Creation as it is written.

Religion, for me, is man made. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist though.

My mum is big ol' Christian but she never forced her religion on her children. I've no issues with those with faith, each to their own... However ....

Are there any Scientologists on TEF?

It's an organisation/cult I simply cannot tolerate. I'm fascinated by the whole thing because it's, well, just so wrong.

If there are any on TEF, I have one question RE: your faith.....

Why?

 People are free to think as they wish....but your reasoning seems so flawed, as to make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I don't usually get involved in the religion debate nowadays. I think it can offer good life guidance to some people whilst others take it out of its original context - most religions strive for some sort of reward at the end and this is usually achieved by fulfilling certain goals.

A higher being is more probably a way to get people to obey such rules, which is where I think religion is open to abuse (e.g. extremists).

I'm quite content to plod along in life and do things my way. I'm also quite content to leave alone others who are religious and clearly not doing any harm.

I think sometime after I formed these conclusions, I decided I wasn't interested in religion at all.

You are wrong and I am right, but that's not what it's about, it's a faith issue and no amount of fossils will persuade the devout Christian otherwise.

I have no issue with reevesy as I've never known him to push his beliefs on anyone else. I wish I could say the same for myself.

Yeah, you're going to hell axs.

where's that?

Oxford.

Get on the A420 and head north..........

thats not so bad, it has bars and a nice park and a river.

Stockport

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagghhhh.

Blackbird Leys.

Wearing a Swindon shirt.

meh, i'm dead already.

I'm not sure why you say my reasoning doesn't make sense, but then I suppose no non-Christian on here will follow my way of thinking anyway! To me it makes sense, and has done for maybe three years now

Interesting. I don't completely disregard the theory of evolution at all. I could just come out with a load of "God moves in mysterious ways" crap but we both know that's not an answer! I won't say evolution doesn't occur because that would be a bit of a blinkered, biased and thoughtless statement, but I do find it hard to understand how non-living matter became living-matter, which became a countless array of animals, plants, birds, fish and various other lifeforms.

Science in general? I think it's great. I think it's amazing that we can learn to understand all about ourselves, the world around us, and the universe beyond it. A lot of the time people say that science throws doubt on the existence of God, and often it does seem to challenge it, but I think a lot of strange ideas come from people taking one explanation of something and disregarding others because they don't seem quite as likely. As for the LHC, I have no problem with it other than the vast amount of money that it cost! It is plain to see that the universe is based upon physical and chemical forces, and if we were to find out the "missing link" by using the LHC it would be great

all religions think their god is the one.that is impossible so surely only one could be right if any at all.

Correct...

so millions of people are wasting their time worshipping gods that dont exist.i'll stick to being a jedi

I have no objection to faith. I just have an issuie with blind faith just beliveing in something despite clear proof otherwise. The best way to bebunk creation crap is to get yourself down to the jerssica coast bash a few rocks and find some fossil's but off course the god squad come up with mad answer to this and quite frankly unless you spend a long time reading the agruments for and against it's all very complicated.

This thread was not an attack on people's faith but purley on their reasoning which to me and most of the great minds in the world is completly bonkers!

....

would you like to finish that sentence Gazza?

I know it wasn't an attack on faith, and to be honest I'm quite surprised how little of an attack it has been after the last religion thread which basically ended up in "prove this" "you;re wrong" "you're stupid" type comments

Most Monotheisms are linked, Muslims, Christians, Jews and their off shoots share basic tenents, even scripture (All recognise The Old Testament as a Holy book)

They all believe in The One True God, just have different ways of Worship.

What is the coolest religion?

I am going to have a punt on Buddhism.

Scientology comes second as they have Beck and Jason Lee.

Christianity is probably the hardest religion because among it's followers is Evander Holyfield.

Zoroastrianism.......

I couldn't give a monkeys about religion I would love however to debate the idea that god created earth, mad!

Beck was born into Scientology so it's not his fault :D ... Jason Lee disappoints me.

There's nothing cool about those swines!

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the best religion.

Bring it on Gazza! If you ignore religion, how would you counter the theory that God exists and created everything?

Something did though

I'm interested to know why you hate Scientology but not other religions.

I have a seriously limited knowledge of Scientology, but from what I've read it doesn't seem all that different to some other religions.

or other spiritual beliefs

The big bang, the expanding univesere theroy, the random movement of atoms, hopefully the lhc will provide some answers.

Or lets look at it another way what is more likely that a all powerful being with the abiltiy to do whatever, whenever etc decided one day I know what I'll do I'll create the univerese yes that's what I'll do, fill some time won't it love. or on the other hand we have the idea that atoms etc random collied and arfter billions of years we have us. The first idea is supported by a book the version of which most read was edited by the romans. Where as the second idea is support by millions of years worth of fossil record, geological record and scentifc study.

I have conclusive proof that God doesn't exist. It's the TEF member above  :D

But God created atoms, the Big Bang, Dinosaurs, Fossils, etc, etc. He created everything.

Kind of, although I suppose Christianity stands apart what with involving Jesus. It's true that they have descended from the same god though (which is stating the obvious when comparing Judaism and Christianity I suppose!)

what about satanists?

what do christians think about neanderthals, and the remains of prehistoric man that have been found in other places all over the planet?
also there is loads of evidence of the worlds surface changing,the climate etc,etc,the proven existence of dinosaurs and then their demise.
for me religion cannot answer these questions and thats why i'll never have faith.

Yep. To test us....

god put it there to test peoples faith.

Bill Hicks sketch ahoy...

saying god created everything is not an agrument. You might as well just say I'm right. Why do you think you are right and how do you think god created everything, what theroy do you have, information. at least try and convice me.

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, but not the Son Of God.

the bible says so.

I don't have to convince you, it's a question of faith. You were the one who wanted to disprove God, so far all you've done is ask me to convince you that he does exist. Where's your proof he doesn't?

That's fair enough,

I cannot be bothered to go into depth but with most religions, their beliefs date back hundreds/thousands of years whereas Scientology is the creation of a failed sci-fi writer in the 1950's - we know it's utter rubbish. L. Ron Hubbard was a money swindling pervert and his cronies are just as bad... The amount of money they take off their followers is insane, more than your average collection for sure.

It's what the protest sign says "Faith is free, Scientology is not".

Read up on both sides of Scientology, it's interesting but it's a nasty organisation(in my opinion).

I've said too much - they may hunt me down.

I think you are gonna have to do better than that. A reasoned agrument is invited, (if possible?)

We're not talking about religion, we're talking about the existence of God.

 

Well I don't know do I! I studied sodding genetics, I'm not exactly a believer.

yes, the bible says he exists.

Well actually it is, it's just that you think it's completely wrong. For many people it is hard to believe and hard to accept. If it wasn't then most people would believe in God.

You cannot provide evidence for God creating everything if you don't believe in the Bible being truth. It's like me taking an awesome set of song lyrics and saying a guy across the room wrote them. How would I prove that to you? I couldn't.

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Belief in God

Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in a "God of the gaps", these scientists, and still others alive today, believe because of the evidence.

Rich Deem

   1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
      Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
   2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
      Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
   3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
      Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
   4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
      Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
   5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
      Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
   6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
      In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
   7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
      One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
   8. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
      Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
   9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
      Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
  10. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
      Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
  11. Max Planck (1858-1947)
      Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
  12. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
      Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Religion helped me

Im confused.

Do all Christians believe in Creationism then?

Why do they think the world is 10,000 years old, does it say that in the Bible? Where does the 7 Days and 7 Nights come into it?My Primary school taught us as Christians (I think they all did back then to be honest) and they explained it to us as 6  and 7 year olds as fact but not to be taken litteraly i.e a day in the 7 days and nights wasnt actually a day it was representitive of that and probably a million years or something.Im probably making no sense am I....

As you posted ealier this subject is impossible to conculde. I cannot prove that good does not exist, it is impossible to prove a negitive.

That is why I asked for some to try and convice me, not prove, just convice me otherwise. I spend all day trying to prove libilty on motor claims which I can never do all I can do is present the best evedince I can and try and conivce others to accept my view.

Not all Christians believe in Creationism, but to be honest I don't personally understand that view. Whether you take 7 days and nights literally is a very personal thing and people form their own opinion about it i suppose

My first post in this thread gave the reason why I believe what i believe (at its most basic level). Although Reg didn't understand my thinking so maybe I explained it very badly!

It's not impossible to prove a negative. I can prove Leeds didn't lose against us.

Religion should be more about faith not who created what.

Go on then.

How do we know that Christianity wasn't invented by someone as a cult to exploit people. Or any other religion for that fact? I think that's the point I was trying to make, just because they're older they're weren't necessarily created for what we see them as today.

I suppose the difference with Scientology is we know who created it. Personally I would agree it's rubbish and created to exploit. From my very limited perspective it seems a lot like a lot of spiritual shit around, which have and are known to trick people rather than offer a truly spiritual encounter (e.g. a medium).

Again though, I think people can be exploited by all manner of things and if it isn't one thing it could be another (I'm not even talking pseudo-religions now). Even though although I feel it's probably largely exploitation, if it makes people happy I can leave them to it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vGv-nH9kwLQ

I was thinking that as I posted it.

If you take that point of view - nothing is proven in the world ever. Still means stating 'you can't prove a negative' a silly thing to say.

I also now realising I'm now debating all kinds of rubbish. Cheers TEF cunts.

It's what we're here for.

I understand your thinking, it's just it makes no sense.

I know. An evening of bollocks has ensued.

If you believe, you believe and no amount of arguing will change that.

I personally don't believe in religion at all. But to say I don't believe in a higher power would be as stupid as saying I do. I like to think of myself a a fence sitter..........

I agree... but it's this reason why I can appreciate why people follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism et al because it's been cemented into culture for generations... Scientology has not and it makes me feel just as uneasy as I'm sure the ancient civilisations felt when people were beginning to conjure up new beliefs.

Scientology is gathering pace big time at the moment. They're everywhere with their innocent looking book stall and free stress test. Shudder.

I'm firmly on one side of the fence, if I'm wrong I'll burn in hell. I can live with that right now but may regret it later........

that is excatly the point I was making you can only convince poeple your point of view/theroy what ever is correct you can never prove it.

Eg Pigs can't fly. How do we know are all the pigs in the wolrd under constant watch, how do we know that they don't fly around when we are not looking? However it is pretty clear that pigs don't fly they don't have wings, they are to big etc etc

The west now has a majority of non-believers, it'll be interesting to see how faith is affected in the east as it becomes more and more developed and westernised.

So what you actually meant was 'you can't prove anything' not 'you can't prove a negative'.

If it helps people through dark times then fair play

you belive because a book says so. Bearing in mind this book (well the verison you have most likiley to call the bible) was concived 400 years after the events, was edited by the romans who are surposed to have killed the main character. Half of the book is written by at best eye witness accounts.

If of course you happen to have read the gosples that didn't make it into the final edit of the book please correct me but I don't reckon you have.

However as you have already said it comes down to faith you ahve faith that this book is the word of god where as I have faith that it's not.

I like it when the face of a saint appears in someones weetabix bowl etc and 30,000 people make a pilgrimage to see it.

if I have faith that religion is bullshit god is fake etc that makes me an ahistist. Does that make afishim a relgion?

Agreed.

[url width=400 height=245]http://mikesplace.freeserverhost.com/Gallimaufry/VirginMaryGrilledCheese/Jesus%20Christ%20Toast%20+%20Virgin%20Mary%20Grilled%20Cheese%20photo.jpg[/url]

afishim? I forgive nearly all your grammatical and spelling mistakes but that's hard to understand in one read  - I assume you meant atheism?

Oh crap, I'm a pedant.

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

and that second piece is properly holey.

yes atheism. I can't spell and am hugley dislexic.

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

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

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

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

 :fishing:

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)

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

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

 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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..........

Why the fuck are people arguing about Einstein beliefs? Doesn't seem to have much to do with anything.

Even catholic schools?

They'll be no anger from me, you're entitled to your opinion, but i quote a passage from Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion, which i believe is fundamental to not believing the bible.

* In the time of ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

* The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

* The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried for three days.

* Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.

* If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his "father" (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.

* If you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.

* The fatherless man's virgin mother never died but was "assumed" bodily into heaven.

* Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), "become" the body and blood of the fatherless man.


Who created god? Who designed the designer? Have you read any books opposing religion (The God Delusion, God is not Great) to see both sides of the coin?


The bible has gone through some 20,000 edits and re-writes over the book's short 1600 year life. Give it a few years and some things will be edited to help future generation get sucked into one of the richest movements on the planet.

Why does religion need money? Why should some amazing all-seeing, all-knowing thing, want our money, it can't spend it? Why should we buy our ticket into heaven? Is he so arrogant that he wants us to worship him to guarantee our ticket to heaven? Does jesus know that the book about him is based on a book written numerous times, thousands of years prior to his supposed existence?

Also, do no people, who are religious, look upon the reasons why they are religious beyond the imagined penalties of not believing?

What i mean, is religion's greatest strength has always been: You best believe in god because if you're right you'll live a life of eternal happiness and bliss, if you're wrong it makes no difference anyway. I.E. Being atheist and being wrong carries a greater penalty than being religious and being wrong, therefore you must believe.

Watch this, not just for it's story on religion, but it's fucking good. And that includes you r4e!

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm


Evolution is as close to a certainty as as there is in science and, like the big bang, should be taught as fact in school. After all, religion is taught as fact and this is not provable in anyway.

If i ever have children, they will be schooled without RE being taught. Perhaps when they're about 13 and are able to rationalise things logically, religion can be taught as a story, like Jungle Book in Cubs. Children are impressionable and don't really have the strength of mind, or life experience, to be able to make any rational judgment. As Richard Dawkins says:
"There's no such thing as a Christian* child, only the child to Christian* parents." *insert religion.


I think you'll find most of science does take this route. All they look at is what is the most probable, and religion is highly, highly improbable.

I don't think atheists are closed minded, although religionists like to look at us that way, it's a simple matter of being rational imao. Believe in the extremely unlikely (tooth fairies, ghosts, superstition, flying pigs, god, etc.), or not? I don't believe. At all. It's not that i believe some other solution to the universe's beginnings is more likely, although by default it has to be, it's simply that i see religion as nothing except solution devoid It's something with no weight, no strength and something that shouldn't even come into the equation, at all, when considering solutions to our beginnings. Reason and answer are ingrained into us, god was created to simply satisfy our deep and seated need for answers to our existence. Evolution answers this. We don't serve a purpose. We're not here for a reason. We are here as a result. Simply one of evolution.

I do remember some ludicrous program on Channel 4, i think, several years ago, where some jumped up theist idiot, tried to (i don't know how to phrase this without it sounding as laughably absurd as it was), disprove atheism. He "did this" by showing how religion is actually the default and correct explanation for everything. I was highly amused by that show and it's comical portrayal of the lengths that theists go to in pursuit of vindication. It's like saying you have to believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden, because i've just proved that no-one can prove to me they don't exist.

Fucking Hell Barry

How long did it take you to write that you Heratic

 ;)

zeitgeist 9/11 stuff is ace!

I'm a member of the westboro baptist church.  You bunch of fags will rot in hell, especially you Barry.  Please feel free to browse our websites.

www.godhatessweden.com  www.godhatesfags.com

(please note I am not anything to do with this crack pot organisation).  Just find the website addresses rather strange for a christian movment. 

Longer than i would have liked, seeing as i only turned on my pc to read my emails, but i decided to read the whole thread, and felt compelled to reply to some parts. GFM's a cunt for starting this thread and getting me to try and make my point, especially after i was determined to avoid this debate.

Heretic. :D

all primary schools.

This is the last post I'm going to make on this pointless fucking thread.

Too many people can't seem to seperate religion and the belief of a Higher Power, religion is a means, created by man, of controlling people. Do this, don't do that, blah, blah, blah.

I don't believe in religion, but I'm open to the possibility of God.

Thank you and good day.

i disagree with you arriba.

not a pointless thread at all.it's a highly debateable subject herthab

drs please explain then

Hertha's talking shit once again!!

It's pointless because no one will change their mind, due to a thread on the TEF, over whether they believe in God, Religion, or whether they don't believe in God or Religion. In the believers mind the rest of you are wrong, in the non believers mind the believers are wrong and in my mind you're all fucking wrong :D


I always talk shit. It's what I do.

Yeeeeeeessss!!!!!!

I lied.

Then sir you will be going to hell, unless you repent your sin(s).

I  dont think it pointless ,ive quite enjoyed reading it especially the Reeves kids stuff who clearly really believes what hes saying even though he does seem a bit nuts to most people.Certainly a more interesting read than 10 pages of "what Pub we going to on Saturday"

Well i am a catholic and went to primary school where god was taught, at a young age like that it had no affect on me but did no harm whatsoever and it was not until i went to senior school that i noticed that most people were deciding then whether they wanted to follow religion or not.

I chose at the time that i did not really believe and if i am honest i became a bit ignorant to my religion. But it was not til around 8 years ago when i was going through some dark times that i went back to my religion and it helped me through those dark times. Dont get me wrong god did not save me and all that bullshit but it gave me something else to concentrate on and helped realise there are better things in life.

My opinion on religion is that its what ever a individual wants it to be, if it helps people through shit times and in alot of peoples instances it helps people live better lives and law abiding lives. If someone wants to get by in life by believing in god and helping others then i don’t see the issue tbh , its when people hide behind religion to carry out terrorist attacks and people start saying religion is rubbish and the route to most wars when thats just a easy excuse.

Sorry for the essay

Are Primary schools still taught as Christians these days?

We has assembly with Hymns and Prayers every day,do they now?

thats a great post and i cant really argue with that.it helped you so that is a positive aspect of religion.i could go on about the death and destruction that catholics have caused, but i wont.
my kids go to catholic schools and all my mrs family are church goers.

Until religion, god & it's associated phenomenons are either proved or disproved then I'll firmly be an athiest. Although, I must admit, I'm more on the side of science.

I think they're supposed to be, it's in the 1988 education reform act or something.

I looked it up last night but couldn't really be bothered to make a long post.

I think I read that it's something that the school inspectors no longer enforce, and that 75% of schools would fail if they did. Something like that anyway.

Personally I'm against teaching a religion in schools. On the other hand I think that teaching about religion should be greatly improved.

Word

I went to a Catholic primary school m- even though my parents werent catholics
I remember being gutted as I the only one in my class not to take my Holy Communion - I wanted to be like all the other girls and get a pretty dress and some jewellery  :cry:

One last thing I'll add to this in response to herthab.

There's a huge difference between someone who clings to a belief despite all the evidence to the contrary, e.g "the world is only 10,000 years old and I don't care about your bloody carbon dating you heathen you're going to hell", and someone like me who when presented with an idea of how the world works asks "where's the evidence in support of it?" and bases his judgement on the strength of that evidence.

To equate the two and call both as closed minded as each other is pretty irrational.

I've retained enough from my physics and chemistry teachers some decades ago that I rarely if ever say that something is impossible, so I'm loathe to entirely rule out the existence of some supernatural supreme being. However, what I have to add to that is that I've never been presented with anything that even vaguely equates to evidence of such a beings existence, so I don't believe it.

 

Why would you go to a Catholic school if your familiy are not Catholic ?

Catholic primary schools rock!!!  St Edmunds was class in Class much better than the other (proddie) schools around!  Heard it's not so good nowadays though.

I have no problem teaching religion in primary schools as more often than not it teaches kids to be respectful and kind etc.

I have nothing further to add on this topic I thing it has been exhusted!

Cos they didn't want their little girl corrupted by the scallys at the likes of Dunston and Priestley??

I went to a Navy school and had to dress in full navy uniorm, learn how to tie knots, sail boats etc all very werid! glad i left after a year and all that becuase my dad, grnadad etc were in the fucking nvay!

No entrance criteria ?

Nail. Head. Hit.

Haha, I was just about to say "because her parents didn't want her playing with the little boys".

I work for a company selling insurance, investments, pension ect. to expats, and at the moment I am tele-marketing whilst I learn my onions to get qualified to sell.

Anyway. I called some bloke last week sometime trying to book an appointment and he said something to me along the line of "I don't need to plan for my future, because god will plan it for me"  ???

I wonder if that blind faith will leave that bloke up the Swanny one day.

There were a few proddies in my class at St Ed's, which was annoying as they wouldn't get told off for not going to church, the catholics would.

I swear if I bumped into my old teacher, who had a go at me for not going to church one day, I'd give her a piece of my mind.

Hit the nail right on the head!!! Hold on - did you go to St Edmunds?????
P.S The had to take some non catholic people that lived nearby - it was like the rules in the olden days

Yep I went to St Edmunds, I have been taught by Mr Twist, Mrs Hewkin, Mrs Beecham, Mrs Hickling and co.  Hate the only reason Mr Twist was our football coach was because he was the only bloke with any authority at the school.  After saying that the caretaker would have done a better job.

oh wow I so thought you went to Cherhill?

ha ha do you remember Mrs Busby? she was a supply teacher she was a bit like Sue Pollard

Mrs Busby!!  Yeah I remember her.  I used to love St Edmund's Harvest festival and all that.  The school was class!!

ha ha ha with her crazy tights and odd shoes - I still htink we should have a harvest festival in the winners lounge - we could get Mrs Beecham into to play the piano

The caretaker was Mr Osbourne wasnt he? I still she his daughter in Chippenham with her headphones on!

Beecham's on my hit list, the only teacher I well and truely hated, through out all my years in education.  The old cow.  Mr Osbourne brilliant, good shout.  His daughter used to sit by the roundabout in town watching the cars go by, like you say with her headphones on.  Is she still alive is she?  Blimey.

yep she sits by the roundabout by the three crown in Nam now though! she still looks exactly thr same - would have thought Mrs Beecham and Mr Osbourne were both dead now though?

Mine was, and so was my secondary school. We were taught how other religions worked as well though. I got a right yelling at once because I said I couldn't really understand why people could follow Christianity when it's so dogmatic and filled with hypocrisies and flaws. It was that which made me an atheist really, but I still respect others who choose to follow it, just don't understand why.

If I had to choose one I'd probably choose sikhism... It teaches tolerance of others and I think that's pretty respectable.. I'll always be an atheist though.

Jesus is a friend of mine...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8&eurl=http://www.b3ta.com/links/Jesus_Is_My_Friend

Strangely hypnotic stuff.

I maybe wrong but I think they're saying that they've got a friend named Jesus.

Check out the lyrics at 1:43-1:53 - AWESOME.

John 11:35

Nice :D

There is evidence of many 'missing links' through the evolution of of the human skull.  We have found it/them.

How different is scientology charging it's members now from the Catholic Churching charging for indulgences 500 years ago....and who will be the scientology Martin Luther?