Cable Forum - UK loses faith

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - UK loses faith (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33703006)

Russ	06-06-2016 19:44

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841427)

I think your are deliberately conflating the teaching of Religious Studies where children learn about the faiths of the world without prejudice with being expected to attend & participate in Christian prayer & worship.

I know exactly what I mean and I've made my views on this plain on here for years. You've tried to put words in my mouth and I corrected you. You used the word 'mandated' - not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841427)

I am surprised you equate a Sky TV salesman with someone who wants to challenge and change your belief system. One wants to change the contents of your bank balance, the other the contents of your head.

You're just fudging the issue now. The point I made was someone knocking on your door trying to get you to buy in to what they're offering - what salesmen and some evangelicals do - is not 'forcing' which is what you described it as. Forcing would be refusing to leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841427)

From my understanding, *you* have to choose to listen to the guy. If you don't like him, don't buy his book, don't read his articles and don't watch his videos ..

*You* brought him up and cited his book as a source, I countered. Forum discussion 101.

ianch99

06-06-2016 20:01

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841430)

I know exactly what I mean and I've made my views on this plain on here for years. You've tried to put words in my mouth and I corrected you. You used the word 'mandated' - not me.

You're just fudging the issue now. The point I made was someone knocking on your door trying to get you to buy in to what they're offering - what salesmen and some evangelicals do - is not 'forcing' which is what you described it as. Forcing would be refusing to leave.

*You* brought him up and cited his book as a source, I countered. Forum discussion 101.

Oh dear ...

Let me clarify (again): when I am discussing Religion in school I am talking about the expectation to attend & participate in Christian prayer & worship and not the tutition of Religious Studies. I thought that would have been obvious but I guess not ..

I cited Dawkins as I feel his work was relevant to the discussion. End of ..

Let's agree to disagree as anything I say you seem to object to ..

passingbat

06-06-2016 20:49

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841427)

I am not sure what you mean by a "parameter"? ..

My interpretation is that he is using 'established facts of science' to base his decision on; that is the parameter he is using.

If they are indeed 'facts', they must be true. If they are established, I guess it means they have been around for a long time.

Given that I'm not in the know about the science community, I'm not sure if that is the case or not.

But what it boils down to is that there are a bunch of scientists who believe in intelligent design and creation and bunch who believe in Evolution. Therefore, if you are looking at it from a scientific perspective, it comes down to which you choose to believe.

As I've said before my belief comes from what the Bible says. What I was trying to do initially was to encourage Christians not to be concerned about proclaiming the Bible view of creation, because contrary to what is generally assumed to be the case, Evolution is not fact. According to that article I quoted, there are increasing numbers of scientists are believing in creation. Evolution is just as much a faith choice as is Creation, And as Christians, we believe we have the final authority on all matters, the Word of God, the Bible.

TheDaddy

06-06-2016 21:18

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35839430)

Isn't religeon just that? You choose to believe there is a God or not, go to church or not, believe in the afterlife or not...

No it isn't, you wouldn't dream of describing someone's sexuality as a lifestyle choice as it's ignorant and crass, attempting to say the same of someone's faith is pretty much the same imo, choosing which coffee shop or bar to drink at is a lifestyle choice and if someone's religion is simply a lifestyle choice it's pretty much worthless imo, but to so many the spirituality they find in their faith means it's a much a part of their make up as any other aspect of their personality.

ianch99

06-06-2016 23:30

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841434)

I need to apologise if this came across patronising. I was fustrated when, having tried to explain my points a number of times, my explanations seemed to be ignored in favour of a different interpretation.

---------- Post added at 23:30 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841440)

Do you have any links to papers published supporting Creationist science? I am really interested in how they prove their hypothesis.

passingbat

07-06-2016 00:23

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841457)

Do you have any links to papers published supporting Creationist science? I am really interested in how they prove their hypothesis.

This seems to give a list of both creation and evolution scientists. Click on a name and it gives a list of qualifications and papers they have written. It would then be a case of googling any name who's qualifications etc., take your fancy.

http://www.christiananswers.net/crea...ople/home.html

Chris

07-06-2016 08:42

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841327)

Let's not look at atheism as a faith. It's a faith in the same way that 'Off' is a TV channel. The only people who can be described as having a 'faith' in atheism are those who think they know there's no higher power and they are being ignorant. Even Dawkins himself doesn't claim that.

It's an absence of faith, not an anti-faith. It is a basic human right to permit someone to follow a faith. All who are anti-faith are probably by definition atheists, far from all atheists are actively anti-faith. For right now it has a place and is key to many people's lives. Some base their entire life around their faith and, regardless of my view on that, that is their absolute right.

I am anti- a few things that are related to faith for sure. I'm against those who misuse science to present a warped version of reality, usually for material gain. I'm against those who misuse faith to justify inhumanity. Faith itself? Meh.

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Interesting article. The take-home there, for me, is that it's probably not possible for someone with faith to understand why someone without could not see evangelism as anything other than an act of love.

One person's self-evident truth is another's self-evident untruth.

EDIT: Can't you tell work is quieter than normal today?

EDIT 2: Which actually makes me think my time would be better spent studying than commenting on a religious thread. Russ / Chris, remember when I used to go all-in on these? I don't miss that version of me. Age clearly mellowed me a little even if it did up the cynicism count a bit. :D Well, age but most of all humanism. Once you find a group of like-minded people and are able to learn from them you feel far more secure in your own belief system, it becomes far more rounded and as a result feel far less inclined to try and, essentially, impose it other people by telling them how ridiculous anything different is.

Man I was a real Richard at times with that stuff. Still a tad evangelical over science, mind you, but happy to admit I don't know and science doesn't know when we don't - see abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc.

:ghugs:

It's certainly a lot calmer all round these days. ;)

Your example of the TV off switch is possibly better than you realise. In some of what you say, you're conflating belief (something you hold to be true) with faith (your response to what you believe). But, just as switching off your TV is a practical response arising from your belief its contents are rubbish, living without reference to a deity or a sense of responsibility to a higher authority is a faith response to the belief that there is no such thing.

I believe that God is as described in the Bible and that the way he calls people to live is trustworthy and true. My faith response is to enter into that pattern of living.

Ignitionnet

07-06-2016 10:22

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841376)

I"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

The evolutionary model does not make an assumption on abiogenesis. That is a fallacy that is repeated by those who posit intelligent design. Indeed it appears this was a major criticism of that author.

The proposition that matter and energy are all that is necessary to produce life is not unscientific. Life is, fundamentally, self-replicating molecules. We can create these with nothing other than matter and energy. When we reproduce we are using nothing other than matter and energy to do so.

As the gentleman noted if you leave matter to itself it does not organise, without outside input into a system it will tend towards being less ordered due to entropy, thermodynamics, etc, however the matter wasn't left to itself, it was not a closed system.

I presume this was an attempt to simplify.

---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841367)

How can you be so sure? There seem to be many scientists who believe in creation.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...cientists.html

There are far, far more who don't. A good thing about science is that there is no faith-based unanimous consensus, just a consensus that most readily fits the available evidence.

It's not a bad thing that there are those who dissent. It is a bad thing, however, if they are dissenting for unscientific reasons and covering it with a veneer of science.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841376)

It seems that from a science perspective, without absolute proof on a specific matter, it's a case of 'what model fits best'. Some believe Creation fits best and some believe Evolution fits best. That's why Creation and Evolution are both a belief/faith issue; each person chooses which set of scientists to believe.

Evolution is neither a belief or a faith issue. It is a fact. No-one has shown any robust evidence to support a young Earth. If someone actually could it would be a scientific revolution and they would win a Nobel.

You're actually offering the same arguments that are used when climate change is discussed. There are a small fraction of scientists that, usually due to vested interests be they financial or their belief system, dissent from the consensus therefore there is doubt, and the claim is that there is a conspiracy by 'big science' to silence them.

We have two very different viewpoints. Mine is, for a change, the more mainstream of them. Disagreement is healthy and necessary.

Pierre

07-06-2016 11:47

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35841302)

just look at atheism as a faith

No, because it isn't

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841327)

I'd rather not label myself, but if I had to do so, it would be atheist. I'm not anti-faith people are free to have a faith/ belief whatever, All power to them.

alanbjames

07-06-2016 11:51

Re: UK loses faith

Well ive cast my EU Vote and just sent it as i do postal voting.

passingbat

07-06-2016 11:57

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841486)

Evolution is neither a belief or a faith issue. It is a fact. .

It can not be a fact if a group of scientists disagree with it. It's that simple. Yours may be the predominant view among scientists, but predominance does not make it a fact. You choose to believe the predominant view, therefore you have faith in that view and there is nothing wrong with that.

As quoted before:

Quote:

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

Osem	07-06-2016 11:59

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanbjames (Post 35841511)

Well ive cast my EU Vote and just sent it as i do postal voting.

I have faith that you made the right choice. ;)

passingbat

07-06-2016 12:08

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35841513)

I have faith that you made the right choice. ;)

You just beat me to it! :D

Russ	07-06-2016 13:47

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841512)

but predominance does not make it a fact.

QFT

ianch99

07-06-2016 14:14

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841512)

I guess it depends on your definition of what a "fact" is?

This definition, in the context of this discussion, seems appropriate:

Quote:

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority

Have a view does not make it a fact. Publishing your reasoned arguments, scientific observations and evidence for peer review is a better route.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841463)

I have researched quite a few of these names. A lot of them appear as contributors to this book:

In Six Days: Why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation

I have tried to find some objective reviews of the book and did not fare too well. I found a pompous review by the infamous Mr Dawkins but as you might guess it is rather biased on this subject :)

From what I can see these scientists are coming to their scientific conclusions based on what their belief compels them to rather than looking at all the available evidence and then concluding that the 6 day Creation model is the best fit for this evidence.

I did not find any published, scientific papers where the Creation theory is presented alongside validated objective evidence from research programmes.

Pierre

07-06-2016 14:26

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841512)

Evolution is a scientific theory which means that the evidence for it has been tested and proven many times.

The case for evolution is therefore an undeniable fact, but what we believe evolution to be can change. to quote Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College.

Quote:

Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change. Theories are like baskets in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made

passingbat

07-06-2016 15:04

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35841538)

The case for evolution is therefore an undeniable fact, .

Whilst there are qualified scientists disputing Evolution, it can bot be a fact. It can be a fact to you, but anything in dispute, from a recognised body of people, can not be a fact.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact; I don't think you will find anyone who will dispute it (except maybe those who can't add up :))

tweetiepooh

07-06-2016 15:14

Re: UK loses faith

There has been suggestions that those who believe in creation (or declare belief in) have found it hard to publish even if their field is unlinked. If true this would give rise to a bias in numbers of scientist who believe (or declare belief) in creation as a science.

I do have issues with a young earth and a literal 6x24 hour creation. The Hebrew word in Genesis for day (yom) can mean an extended period but does normally mean 24 hours. It was Arch Bish Ussher who calculated creation at 4004BC but his methods were not accurate as it used genealogies to work backwards from know dates. But the wording in the genealogies, son of/father of, could be translated (and in some cases should be) descendant of/ancestor of.

There is also a distinction to be made between micro-evolution (traits in a species) that is proven and macro-evolution (changes from one species to another) which isn't.

papa smurf

07-06-2016 16:08

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35841507)

No, because it isn't

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 ----------

I'd rather not label myself, but if I had to do so, it would be atheist. I'm not anti-faith people are free to have a faith/ belief whatever, All power to them.

but a few months back it seemed to give such comfort to our religious brethren to taunt atheists that it was a faith/religion hence my post about spreading the word ;)

Pierre

07-06-2016 16:58

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841545)

It is a scientific theory which therefore makes it as clear and undeniable as 2+2=4

Chris

07-06-2016 17:08

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35841571)

It is a scientific theory which therefore makes it as clear and undeniable as 2+2=4

Not quite. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, else it is not a theory. The theory hangs on evidence whose interpretation, by consensus, strongly supports it. However any half-decent scientist is ready to modify or abandon the theory should future discoveries require it.

It is not, therefore, as clear or as undeniable as 2+2=4, which in any case is not a scientific theory based on the interpretation of evidence, but a theorem founded on mathematical proofs.

</pedant>

:D

ianch99

07-06-2016 18:03

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35841548)

Carbon Dating also presents a challenge .. the technique is generally accepted as reasonable accurate (in relative terms) and so when applied to prehistoric dating e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioc..._Fossil_Forest, it presents a problem in the Young Earth chronology

Chris

07-06-2016 18:11

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841582)

Carbon-14 provides dates back to the tens of thousands BP. It's a problem for young-earthers who have shackled themselves to Bishop Usher's proposed creation date in 4004BC, but I don't think most proponents of the young Earth do stick to that any more. His methodology was was very suspect anyway, and there are gaps in the Genesis genealogy that aren't that hard to spot.

ianch99

07-06-2016 18:39

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841586)

I wonder how many of the Creationist Scientists support the Young Earth interpretation rather than the age estimated by mainstream science?

passingbat

07-06-2016 19:50

Re: UK loses faith

I find it interesting that some people who support Evolution are quite determined to prove people who believe Creation, wrong. They will claim Evolution as a fact, when it is actually a theory, granted, the predominant theory. Creation, from the scientific standpoint, is also a theory. For Christians, it is only by applying faith in The word of God that makes creation a 'faith-fact' i.e., not as we generally understand the word 'fact'.

I don't see that determination to disprove Evolution coming from the Creation side. Is it because they currently don't have as much scientific evidence as the Evolution people have? Maybe; I haven't totted up the evidence on either side. Is it because they are afraid of being ridiculed because they are standing against the 'world' view? Or is it more to do Bible Believing Christians having such confidence in the Word of God and a complete peace in what it teaches, that they don't need to defend it. That is certainly where I'm coming from. It's maybe a combination of all three.

Evolution is certainly a more 'convenient' stance. There is no creator God, and therefore no one to be accountable to when you die. Providing you obey the law, you can do whatever you want. On a human level, a pretty attractive proposition

If you acknowledge a Creator, and therefore creation, that whole scenario becomes a whole lot different. Decisions need to be made both for the way we live today and also with regard to eternity. Not such an attractive prospect on the human level.

It's easy to see on a non scientific level why Evolution is so attractive. And of course the devil loves Evolution; it negates the need of people to come to faith in Jesus.

As someone reportedly said, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"

Russ	07-06-2016 20:19

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841616)

Intolerance is partly to blame...

Damien

07-06-2016 20:38

Re: UK loses faith

Sorry but that's just wrong.

People support Evolution because there is considerable scientific evidence behind it. The theory of Evolution in a scientific sense is not equal to the biblical theory of creation, these are not comparable things. If you try and claim it is or promote creationism as an equally valid theory of life in science then you will rightly meet resistance.

Quote:

Rubbish. An accurate understanding of evolution doesn't assume to know how the life got there in the first place. In other words the idea of a original creator of life is not incompatible with the theory of evolution. I am not a theologian but it seems to be it you could have these things co-existing if God created life and then evolution happened to if afterwards.

Pierre

07-06-2016 20:54

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841616)

I find it interesting that some people who support Evolution are quite determined to prove people who believe Creation, wrong. They will claim Evolution as a fact, when it is actually a theory

"

That statement underlines that you do not understand what a scientific " theory" is. A theory in the usual use of the word and a scientific theory are poles apart.

A scientific theory means that it is "proven" there is no guess work, no hypotheses, it is proven. New information and evidence may appear which may change how we interpret the theory, but it doesn't the " fact" that the evolution is " proven".

ianch99

07-06-2016 21:09

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841616)

I think that the primary issue is when someone presents opinion as scientific fact. I personally can't see anyone objecting to people having whatever opinions as they like.

The problem lies when they take this opinion and try, using the credibility of science, and change processes & practices that affect others.

An example being the teaching of Creationism in public school in (some) US States:

Intelligent Design and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Quote:

The ruling was one in a series of developments addressing issues related to the American creationist movement and the separation of church and state. The scope of the ruling affected state schools and did not include independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools, all of whom remained free to teach creationism.

Within two years of the Edwards ruling a creationist textbook was produced: Of Pandas and People (1989), which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer." Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.[9] This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism, was developed in the early 1990s.

This would eventually lead to another court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005, and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005, in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design (ID) be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover Area School Board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just as it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class where the intent is to factually educate students about the diverse range of human political and religious beliefs. The line is crossed only when creationism is taught as science, just as it would be if a teacher were to proselytize a particular religious belief

I don't see this as intolerance just common sense ..

Pierre

07-06-2016 21:12

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841574)

This article explains quite well when talking about gravity, and what I posted earlier about the " basket"

https://explorable.com/falsifiability

Gravity is proven scientific theory.....no question.

We lived with Newtons laws for a long while and they served us well. But Eienstein produced new evidence to change how we think about gravity.

But gravity still is.

Evolution is he same. It is proven. There is no argument. New evidence may be discovered that may change how we consider evolution, but it won't change the fact that evolution is.

pip08456

07-06-2016 21:24

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841616)

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts.

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

http://www.livescience.com/21491-wha...of-theory.html

passingbat

07-06-2016 21:34

Re: UK loses faith

You will never convince me that a theory is a fact.

And Evolution is a theory, not a fact. From a scientific perspective, Creation is a theory.

papa smurf

07-06-2016 21:37

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841635)

You will never convince me that a theory is a fact.

a closed mind is a dying mind.

Damien

07-06-2016 21:40

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841635)

You will never convince me that a theory is a fact.

And Evolution is a theory, not a fact. From a scientific perspective, Creation is a theory.

But you're actually wrong on this. Your argument is hanging on the misunderstanding of the word 'theory' in a scientific context.

Pierre

07-06-2016 21:41

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841635)

You will never convince me that a theory is a fact.

Again that statement tells me all I need to know.

You don't understand the term scientific theory.

What you have just said is that you will never be convinced about plate techtonics, general relativity or special relativity.

Hmmmmmm...........

passingbat

07-06-2016 21:41

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35841636)

a closed mind is a dying mind.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Damien

07-06-2016 21:43

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35841638)

Getting on a plane would post a bit of a problem as well. Given our understanding of gravity is 'just a theory'.

passingbat

07-06-2016 21:43

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35841638)

You don't understand the term scientific theory.

Maybe, but I understand common sense.

Pierre

07-06-2016 21:58

Re: UK loses faith

Well argued sir! That told me.

good job we can all rely on the absolute scientific principle of common sense.

Ignitionnet

08-06-2016 12:41

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841616)

Evolution is certainly a more 'convenient' stance. There is no creator God, and therefore no one to be accountable to when you die. Providing you obey the law, you can do whatever you want. On a human level, a pretty attractive proposition

If you acknowledge a Creator, and therefore creation, that whole scenario becomes a whole lot different. Decisions need to be made both for the way we live today and also with regard to eternity. Not such an attractive prospect on the human level.

It's easy to see on a non scientific level why Evolution is so attractive. And of course the devil loves Evolution; it negates the need of people to come to faith in Jesus.

Evolution is nothing to do with the existence of a creator and makes no comments on it.

You've just said that neither the Anglican or Catholic churches believe in God as the heads of both and the commonly held conventions accept evolution as fact.

Your attempts to make me read / watch the convincing 'science' are somewhat undermined by your repeatedly conflating, presumably at the prompting of this 'science', abiogenesis and evolution. These kinds of comments from believers of a young Earth remind me why I don't bother with that stuff very often.

The idea that atheism is convenient as it provides a pass to be immoral is beyond comedy. I don't believe in any afterlife, however good a human being I am. My consciousness ends irrevocably. Some would say that's pretty inconvenient relative to believing in eternal paradise if following the 'right' rules.

If you only have morals because you fear what might happen to you in the afterlife you believe in I'd take a really good, long look at yourself.

Basic values of decency, humanity, etc, should be internal and embraced because they are a better way for all to live, and are how you yourself would wish to be treated, not require duress from the threat of eternal damnation.

Thank you for the reminder of what Christian fundamentalism looks like. It's as ugly as pretty much every other kind, religious and non-religious alike.

tweetiepooh

08-06-2016 13:40

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35841641)

Getting on a plane would post a bit of a problem as well. Given our understanding of gravity is 'just a theory'.

We do have the "Laws of Motion" which work here, but understanding gravity is different to accepting it. Does anyone understand what gravity is other than attraction to centre of mass?

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841734)

Evolution is nothing to do with the existence of a creator and makes no comments on it.

This is the point of God's Undertaker but there are some in the humanist/securalist/naturalist wing who do comment that science has proven the non-existence of God.

At best what science has shown is the the non-existence of god that really isn't what Christians believe anyway.

Pierre

08-06-2016 14:01

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35841749)

We do have the "Laws of Motion" which work here, but understanding gravity is different to accepting it. Does anyone understand what gravity is other than attraction to centre of mass?.

It's not a question of acceptance, you cant' unaccept it. It is there, whether you accept it or not.

Gravity is a product of the distortion of space time due to an objects mass.

I'm not a cosmologist so don't really lose any sleep over it.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35841749)

At best what science has shown is the the non-existence of god that really isn't what Christians believe anyway.

Science hasn't shown the non-existence of a creator. The fundemental question of who or what created the universe is unanswered.

Ignitionnet

08-06-2016 15:37

Re: UK loses faith

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35841749)

Anyone who claims that science has disproven a God is quite simply wrong.

As I think I've posted here before I'm 99.9% certain that there's no God, but in the absence of proof to claim there is would be closed-minded and, well, arrogant. Were there evidence that there's no God that holds up to scrutiny that 99.9% would be 100%.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:38.

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page