If you were God..............

[newtonfox]

Youve changed! :icon_lol:

BG's not around for 2 weeks you know :icon_lol: :icon_wink

 

[Melton Fox]

Youve changed! :icon_lol:

Well that's what you wanted isn't it

Blimey, I make an effort for you and it's still not appreciated.

 

[Jeff]

You're entitled to your beliefs or lack thereof but I fail to see why I'm the only one having to prove himself.

You're the one having to prove yourself because you're the one who believes in something that no one can see or hear.

It's very difficult to prove that something doesn't exist, because no matter where you look for it, it could be somewhere else.

But if something does exist it should be easier to prove it exists.
The problem is, your 'proof' - the bible - is full of contradictions and things that have been disproved by science.


Why won't your god provide proof that it exists?

 

[drummindefender]

surely the point is faith isn't scientific and therefore cannot be backed up by scientific evidence-therefore lambasting someone for not having scientific evidence for there religious beliefs is stupid as its contradictory to what faith is and entails......

 

[Jeff]

surely the point is faith isn't scientific and therefore cannot be backed up by scientific evidence-therefore lambasting someone for not having scientific evidence for there religious beliefs is stupid as its contradictory to what faith is and entails......

But the fact that there's no evidence puts it in the same league as believing in aliens, the Loch Ness monster, ghosts etc, and much of what they believe in goes against what's been scientifically proven.

 

[drummindefender]

maybe theres more to life then science-and thats what faith entails...

 

[MKFox]

But the fact that there's no evidence puts it in the same league as believing in aliens, the Loch Ness monster, the watford game, ghosts etc, and much of what they believe in goes against what's been scientifically proven.

 

[Darth Vodka]

surely the point is faith isn't scientific and therefore cannot be backed up by scientific evidence-therefore lambasting someone for not having scientific evidence for there religious beliefs is stupid as its contradictory to what faith is and entails......

that's all very nice saying, i'm ignorant leave me alone la-la-la can't hear you

but unfortunately religion promotes hatred and intolerance and it has to be held up to question and it has to be removed from statutory influences. no bishops in the house of lords, no sectarian faith schools, no ****ing academies by that **** Vardy that refuse to teach evolution



religion should be a personal private thing, but it isn't. it may seem trivial and petty to question the man in the street's religion, but Britain has become largely secular because of the freedom of speech and the fact we can question things

 

[Darth Vodka]

maybe theres more to life then science-and thats what faith entails...

to say that is to misunderstand science

if there is something observed that is outside current thinking... it becomes current thinking even if it doesn't fit known theories

someone finds a herb that cures a tribe in africa? is that god? science didn't know about it?

 

[highland fox]

But the fact that there's no evidence puts it in the same league as believing in aliens, the Loch Ness monster, ghosts etc, and much of what they believe in goes against what's been scientifically proven.

Oi,Tourism is suffering enough up here without you questioning the existence of Nessie

 

[drummindefender]

that's all very nice saying, i'm ignorant leave me alone la-la-la can't hear you

but unfortunately religion promotes hatred and intolerance and it has to be held up to question and it has to be removed from statutory influences. no bishops in the house of lords, no sectarian faith schools, no ****ing academies by that **** Vardy that refuse to teach evolution



religion should be a personal private thing, but it isn't. it may seem trivial and petty to question the man in the street's religion, but Britain has become largely secular because of the freedom of speech and the fact we can question things

to be honest i'm baffled at the reaction that has provoked.

all i was trying to say is that i personally believe there is more to life and human existance then what can be defined scientifically-and that faith is not science, so to try and pick wholes in the arguments of someones faith using science is illogical, as faith is based on believing in what you cannot necessarily observe via the senses, something which obviously is totally unscientific

 

[drummindefender]

and yes i know certain things exist in science which cannot be sensually observed (directly i guess) but i duno you see what im getting at!

 

[RHYDAL]

Latest from Wales on the Health and Safety idiots v Religious idiots battle......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7091186.stm

Solicitors win again.

 

[Hammond Organ]

Latest from Wales on the Health and Safety idiots v Religious idiots battle......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7091186.stm

Solicitors win again.

Perhaps rather than worry about whether she wears a bangle, they should marvel at the fact she can close said bangle over her trotters.

 

[Darth Vodka]

to be honest i'm baffled at the reaction that has provoked.

all i was trying to say is that i personally believe there is more to life and human existance then what can be defined scientifically-and that faith is not science, so to try and pick wholes in the arguments of someones faith using science is illogical, as faith is based on believing in what you cannot necessarily observe via the senses, something which obviously is totally unscientific

and that sounds very nice, a god-of-the-gaps

but it's the thin end of the wedge

and besides foxinoz was quoting "facts" to support his beliefs, i.e. the use of logic to defend the illogical

 

[Darth Vodka]

Latest from Wales on the Health and Safety idiots v Religious idiots battle......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7091186.stm

Solicitors win again.

it's not Health & Safety, it's school rules vs religious twattery

we're in trouble if the law panders to religious needs, luckily it doesn't and we have to keep it that way

 

[Siouxsie]

it's not Health & Safety, it's school rules vs religious twattery

we're in trouble if the law panders to religious needs, luckily it doesn't and we have to keep it that way

Looking at the 5 Ks on that page I wonder if they want her to wear a Kirpan (steel sword) to school too?



(perhaps this is just for males - I have no idea, feel free to enlighten me)

 

[Darth Vodka]

Looking at the 5 Ks on that page I wonder if they want her to wear a Kirpan (steel sword) to school too?



(perhaps this is just for males - I have no idea, feel free to enlighten me)

there was talk of Sikhs getting arsey about not being able to carry their swords on plane and airports

:icon_roll

 

[drummindefender]

and that sounds very nice, a god-of-the-gaps

but it's the thin end of the wedge

and besides foxinoz was quoting "facts" to support his beliefs, i.e. the use of logic to defend the illogical

i see you still haven't contested my argument about not tackling faith with scientific logic being illogical-i doubt foxinoz was claiming them to be 100% fact, but mearly pointing out that he believed so due to his faith.

 

[Macky]

to be honest i'm baffled at the reaction that has provoked.

all i was trying to say is that i personally believe there is more to life and human existance then what can be defined scientifically-and that faith is not science, so to try and pick wholes in the arguments of someones faith using science is illogical, as faith is based on believing in what you cannot necessarily observe via the senses, something which obviously is totally unscientific

I can see what you're trying to get at dd, but you are confusing faith in a higher power with organised religion & its use of scripture as a political device.

This thread hasn't been about the use of science to debate faith.