Thunderbird Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Like a Chicken Tika surely? I reject your reality and substitute my own! Edited February 4, 2012 by Thunderbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Using that argument, if I told you I knew there was an invisible owl/otter hybrid with nan breads for wings hovering a foot above your head, it would be illogical for you to deny it? If you told me that it was capable of making itself completely undetectable then it would be illogical for me to state that it doesn't exist. I wouldn't believe you, but that's a different argument. Consider this: Some of the finest scientific minds on Earth believe that there may be multiple universes existing in parallel with our own in the same space. One of them may have your nan-bread-otter hybrid living in it. The same scientists also calculate that 75% of our own universe is completely invisible to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Incidentally, if I was the creator I would definitely have made pigeons in different spicy flavours and given them nan breads for wings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted February 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Incidentally, if I was the creator I would definitely have made pigeons in different spicy flavours and given them nan breads for wings. In which case I would market cartridges loaded with black peppercorns in a garam massala buffer(cardamom seeds for the rangier birds). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) i believe thats what we call choice my friend, some of us do, some of us dont, life is all about choice, my choice rright. If it's 'freedom' of choice,then fair enough,but in many cases 'freedom' of choice isn't a priority when it comes to religious belief.I'm all for religious education(covering all faiths and beliefs from which a choice can be freely made,if any)but religious education from an early age,preaching one faith,and one deity,is in fact indoctrination.Very,very wrong,and very,very worrying. I find it amazing how intelligent adults,with the benefit of common sense,can arrive at a decision that there is some deity up in the sky,looking down on us all,has created this world and all that which inhabits it,and is responsible for everything which occurs on it. I find it annoying when those same intelligent people tell me I should repent or I will be damned to eternal damnation( a truly ridiculous comment which ignores the fact I have made a choice)and I resent it when one of the richest organisations in the world tells me I should not covet wealth and material things in these desperate times when there are so many people struggling in the present financial climate,but then ignore questions as to how the church's wealth was accumulated.Perhaps if the church is so keen to 'spread the wealth' it wouldn't mind showing a bit of christian charity by literally opening its doors to those who are without. I believe man created god(why else would there be so many?)not the other way around. Edited February 4, 2012 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted February 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Guys, a polite request please - which you can of course ignore! Can we keep off religion? It's not what the thread was supposed to be about and there are plenty of others on the subject which all seem to go the same way Ta muchly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Sows how much you and Hitchens know, mankind was created perfect then sin came to tempt and man fell cf Gen 3. I don't think sin came, I think the ice-age came and with it the necessary climatic shift to enable man to abandon a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence and develope agriculture, and with it plenitude, idleness and 'civilisation' - the wilful rejection of our place in the natural order, the so-called forbidden fruit which grew on the tree of knowledge. With too much time on his hands Man became self-absorbed and inclined to naval-gazing, constructing an artificial niche for himself in a world which kept him insufficiently busy. Or as we call it, culture. Perhaps under this intense scrutiny of his position, a necessary evolutionary awe of Man's surroundings and his insignificance was transposed into religion. I don't denigrate the book of Genesis. It might be seen as a remarkably prescient early treatise on anthropolgy. It is not concerned so much with how the world was made as how Mankind's place in it was un-made. It identifies the evolutionary tangent on which mankind has veered, and records it in the language of myth. The grave misgivings expressed in Genesis about the path mankind has chosen to take would seem to have been vindicated by events of the intervening 4000 odd (or whatever) years and the dreadful destruction we have wrought on the world. It may yet transpire that the glorious acheivements of human knowledge are the accelerator on the evolutionary road to extinction rather than the keys to eternity. It is a pity that modern scientific thinking cannot condescend to consider in analytical terms whether somewhere within the myths there might be some hidden kernals of truth which were felt instinctively rather than understood. Science and religon are as bad as each other. Myth after all was merely the language of enquiry before the age of science. The son of Adam is not Renaissance Man; the son of Adam is small and dark, lives in a tree house in Irian Jaya and has a bone through his nose. Or he was until we burned his tree to bring him enlightenment. Edited February 4, 2012 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Guys, a polite request please - which you can of course ignore! Can we keep off religion? It's not what the thread was supposed to be about and there are plenty of others on the subject which all seem to go the same way Ta muchly Sorry Blunderbuss, I was already underway I'm afraid. Think of it more as philosophy. Its much more fun than religon and no one's ever been burned at the stake over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted February 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Sorry Blunderbuss, I was already underway I'm afraid. Think of it more as philosophy. Its much more fun than religon and no one's ever been burned at the stake over it. I'll forgive you. See I'm doing it now, absolution and all that :o As posts go, that is slightly deeper than the average PW fare. I'm going to have to have a lie down and think about what you've written, before I can possibly think of anything remotely interesting to say in response...... What is your favourite brand of pigeon cartridges? Edited February 4, 2012 by Blunderbuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I'll forgive you. See I'm doing it now, absolution and all that :o As posts go, that is slightly deeper than the average PW fare. I'm going to have to have a lie down and think about what you've written, before I can possibly think of anything remotely interesting to say in response...... What is your favourite brand of pigeon cartridges? Ely Hi-flyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Cracking post Gimlet,and my apologies to you Blunderbuss,and anyone I've offended.I'm a rather passionate person and tend to get a bit carried away by my 'high horse' at times,which is firmly tethered in its stable once again. :look: Edited February 5, 2012 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted February 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) No offence taken at all, some very interesting points made. Its precisely because the thread has been so interesting I thought it best steer clear of religion, so it doesn't get closed. Civilised debate on religion shouldn't be a problem and I've enjoyed the points for and against, we've had a brief taste of from you and Gimlet, Henry D etc. Trouble is, it eventually attracts others whose style is less debate more rant and the mods feel the need to pull the plug, This is a real shame as I was quite enjoying it. Keep the horse well fed and watered Scully, he deserves a good run out every now and then Edited February 5, 2012 by Blunderbuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 I don't think sin came, I think the ice-age came and with it the necessary climatic shift to enable man to abandon a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence and develope agriculture, and with it plenitude, idleness and 'civilisation' - the wilful rejection of our place in the natural order, the so-called forbidden fruit which grew on the tree of knowledge. With too much time on his hands Man became self-absorbed and inclined to naval-gazing, constructing an artificial niche for himself in a world which kept him insufficiently busy. Or as we call it, culture. Perhaps under this intense scrutiny of his position, a necessary evolutionary awe of Man's surroundings and his insignificance was transposed into religion. I don't denigrate the book of Genesis. It might be seen as a remarkably prescient early treatise on anthropolgy. It is not concerned so much with how the world was made as how Mankind's place in it was un-made. It identifies the evolutionary tangent on which mankind has veered, and records it in the language of myth. The grave misgivings expressed in Genesis about the path mankind has chosen to take would seem to have been vindicated by events of the intervening 4000 odd (or whatever) years and the dreadful destruction we have wrought on the world. It may yet transpire that the glorious acheivements of human knowledge are the accelerator on the evolutionary road to extinction rather than the keys to eternity. It is a pity that modern scientific thinking cannot condescend to consider in analytical terms whether somewhere within the myths there might be some hidden kernals of truth which were felt instinctively rather than understood. Science and religon are as bad as each other. Myth after all was merely the language of enquiry before the age of science. The son of Adam is not Renaissance Man; the son of Adam is small and dark, lives in a tree house in Irian Jaya and has a bone through his nose. Or he was until we burned his tree to bring him enlightenment. Good reply, with a few errors. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which gives a whole new meaning to it. When we consider things such as the Enuma Elish and Genesis (probably from the same era and areas) together there is a whole world of difference between them the main one being that in Genesis the creation of the cosmos is the same as the theories the scientists have come up with (to date). Whatever way we look at things the simple fact is that the best guess is probably right, science tells us that everything was created in a small instance of time FROM NOTHING and we are to accept that as true. Yet things don`t pop into existence randomly for no reason, or do they, I certainly haven`t seen them, but I digress, we seem to agree that there are good and bad on both sides of the fence and hopefully some day there will be clarity MARANATHA Gonna have to dash, time is pressing, Laters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 we seem to agree that there are good and bad on both sides of the fence and hopefully some day there will be clarity MARANATHA Gonna have to dash, time is pressing, Laters! Fair enough henry d,and yes,let's hope so.All being well will see you all in a couple of weeks....off to sunny Scotland! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet1747 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know… very true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 It's an un-winnable argument. You can't prove there is no God, Henry can't prove there is, and neither of you ( or anyone else ) can claim that if there was a God you would have the intellect to understand his plan. You write about your logic, but how can it be logical to deny the existence of something that, if it existed, would be capable of making itself invisible to you ? Atheism is just as illogical as religion. I was looking for an explanation not an argument. I haven't tried to prove there is no god and for the record I am not an atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Good reply, with a few errors. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which gives a whole new meaning to it. When we consider things such as the Enuma Elish and Genesis (probably from the same era and areas) together there is a whole world of difference between them the main one being that in Genesis the creation of the cosmos is the same as the theories the scientists have come up with (to date). Whatever way we look at things the simple fact is that the best guess is probably right, science tells us that everything was created in a small instance of time FROM NOTHING and we are to accept that as true. Yet things don`t pop into existence randomly for no reason, or do they The difference is, the big bang has experimental evidence and theory to back it up as the most logical and best explanation we have to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 The difference is, the big bang has experimental evidence and theory to back it up as the most logical and best explanation we have to date. Yet still no explanation of where or how matter came into being from nothing, therefore the best and most logical explanation to date is...............a creator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Yet still no explanation of where or how matter came into being from nothing, therefore the best and most logical explanation to date is...............a creator? I know we've been asked to stay off the subject of religion, but I have to counter your argument above. The logical question that your point raises is; who created the creator? In a way, it is pointless to speculate over things that can't be proved and are a matter of faith, as by it's nature, faith dosen't need proof. All the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Yet still no explanation of where or how matter came into being from nothing, therefore the best and most logical explanation to date is...............a creator? No. The most logical explanation is we dont know either way till evidence shows itself. (Because as FalconFN said, who created the creator? we are back to square one and have gained no knowledge or logical position) But i do think scientists have theory's for pre-big bang, i just haven't looked into yet so cant comment on it. Edited February 6, 2012 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) I know we've been asked to stay off the subject of religion, but I have to counter your argument above. The logical question that your point raises is; who created the creator? Nope, there is no logic in a circular argument, who created the creators creator, who created the creators creators creator.......... In a way, it is pointless to speculate over things that can't be proved and are a matter of faith, as by it's nature, faith dosen't need proof. All the best. .....and our fathers fathers, and our fathers fathers fathers...... Edited February 6, 2012 by henry d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulos Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Never mind the 'big bang theory' vs 'sky fairy' argument, or even the differences in opinion between different cultures about how we got here, even Christianity can't agree - did 'god' start it all off billions of years ago and then sod off, or did he create us all as per Genesis? Different branches of the same religion can attach themselves to either of these and everything inbetween. All seems a bit far fetched to me Edited February 6, 2012 by paulos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kev- Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Another Video of a big cat today in the Sun big cat? am not 100% convinced with this one although i beleive they could possibly be out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.