Turbohot

Alan, it was said objectively. But you want proof, take Britain as an example. Look at the groups with no faith or little faith. Check out the disorder, unrest, and problems there. Hang on, don't confuse faith with belief in some imagined supreme being/Grand Designer. I mean, faith in oneself, faith in humanity, faith in community etc. Just to summarise, my focus was on the concept of God in my post above. That was my main objective with my post, not to attack well-managed secular states that they are highly diorderly and corrupt. Obviously, such states/countires have faith in the system, unlike Great Britain's non-religious polulation absolutely hating the system, hating this, hating that, hating almost everything around them; apart from crisps and coke. That's why it is working in places like Sweden and Denmark. Faith is required for peaceful and harmonious existence, that was the underlined philosophy of my post.

Leslie

I think your posts put it all very well Turbohot.

Now I have not said that all the dictats from every religion are sensible and certainly the Taylor Brethren seem to be rather strange and well over the top. I am surprised you bothered to quote them Alan, no normally modern minded person would go along with all that! Similarly, the latest "requirements" of some extreme Islamist clerics which have just been announced with respect to wimmins appearing on tv etc. are quite ridiculous and are not worthy of consideration. Basically those and similar examples mean nothing when one discusses religion in general.

So many people choose to believe that there has to be some meaning to life and the world in general that they feel that there must be some form of superior being behind it all. This has been evident from the very early tribes who felt they needed to worship some form of God or Gods and to keep on the right side for good luck's sake as much as anything!

Coupled with those beliefs come that other thing called "Faith". It is one of the first items to be attacked by non believers as a rule. But it exists!

Most atheists put their entire belief in Science, its convenient to hang their hats on and they have total "Faith" in all those pronouncements telling us about the beginnings of the Universe and the Big Bang etc. They have to have "Faith" because what we are told so far by those scientists is mainly based on theory because there is little actual proof so far. They say the LHC may prove it all yet, provided that a Black Hole which it could create they say, has not swallowed us up! Will Higg's Boson be seen, and will it provide all the answers, or just merely confirm how it all hangs together?

It is interesting that those lucky blokes who went into space and to the moon and back found themselves deeply affected when they saw Earth as a small orb in the far distance and how the utter vastness of the small amount of space that they were in confirmed their feelings about the ultimate power of a supreme being. The one I met told me about all that and it was backed up by the NASA people we also met.

Its pretty awe inspiring when you take a moment to consider the Universe. The size of it all is just unbelievable and the numbers of planetary systems must contain other worlds are far as I am concerned. I find it difficult to accept that all this started from a big bang and over the billions of years developed into what is out there in space without there being someone somehow responsible for setting it off. We don't even know if this is the only Universe even! Think of the laws of nature and how it all combines to produce what we know and how it all fits together. Could those laws be different in another part of the universe or another world? My take on it is that I don't think it all happened by accident.

When it comes to individual religions, most of them basically preach that one should follow what civilised people consider to be a good life. I dont necessarily believe that one of those religions is better than another. I think that as long as you follow your conscience which normally can be expected to lead you along good lines, then you won't go too far wrong. It is easy to discount the fundamentalists and extremists whose ideas are often for nefarious purposes anyway and they prove nothing apart from the fact that people come in all guises!

The final necessity is that of tolerance. That is very important if we are to live together in a harmonious society, ie. you believe what you want and accept that I can follow my beliefs as long as they do no harm to that society.

Now you have dragged it out of me Alan, in my own time

Les

Turbohot

Thank you, Leslie. I thought you would understand.

Leslie

Wonder where Alan C went!

Les

Alan C

I'm still here. Busy with football and Changing my job. No lightning bolts from the blue or conversions to a faith.....

Turbohot - I misread / understood your context, but one thing I wanted to pick up on was that I'm a member of a few no faith groups (virtual or through reading) and I can say that these Humanists are focussed on humanity, free from a blinkered steer or blind faith perspective and therefore respect views and life far more than those supposedly blessed with faith. I agree that people without faith do harm, but what they don't do is harm people because of this reason. There's always a large slice of socio-political reasoning or simple greed / avarice behind it.

Faith in oneself is subjective and down to personal confidence. My recent job change came about due to faith in myself and my ability. Not in someone or something else. I certainly didn't thank God for the job!! Especially as those people who didn't get it may have been 'believers'. It always makes me smile that the victors in a sports match 'thank God for their win'.... like God didn't care about the other team!! (this is where the devil gets rolled out to cover up for this small logical disconnect....)

Les - My quote was to outline the Moral and ethical standpoint and that these 'nutters' think their stance is solid in terms of religious morals and ethics. We know different of course.
Faith! How anyone can let faith guide their life is 'missing' the point. I'm sure you don't make crucial financial or personal decisions based on 'faith'. You certainly won't drive around this weekend making decisions based on faith. But faith comes along when a void needs to be filled. A death in the family or when some unexplainable phenomenon needs explaining. Instead of going.. **** that was lucky! People 'missing the point' look to god or the devil to explain it away. Crazy. Just like the Plymouth Brethren.

As an atheist, I have no religious style 'faith' in science. This is a complete misrepresentation by theists. Science operates in Black & Whites. Something is or isn't. The isn't are then given 'theories' that are put out there to be proven or disproven. That's it. My faith in science, just like your faith in science, is that it has proven things once deemed unknowable or based on theory and that it will continue to do so. Science will either prove the big bang or it won't. easy as that. But relying on a bunch of self appointed theologians to provide me with the answer, whose only claim is to base their entire story on having read a single unproven book, is tantamount to a crime.
Those spacemen you mentioned had the same mind blowing experience that a famous genetic scientist had when stumbling upon a frozen waterfall. Suddenly the only asnwer was a god. So much for a scientific background where all things must be challenged and thoroughly.

The universe is an unbelievable and beautiful thing. But a single book written by a series of 2000 year old story tellers who also believed the world to be flat with the sun circling around us are the poorest of people to be setting up your camp with. Scientists of today who are working hard to understand what this universe is like from proof and who are building solid theories from what we know of today or are discovering tomorrow surely are the only people to listen to.

Well, all I can do is thank you for finally sharing that with me. I have a total lack of religious faith and I'm utterly respectful of your stance. That should tell you something about irreligious people!

The only faith I have is that 5 pm will come and I'll be on my home...

Leslie

The only point I will come back to is that of "Faith" Alan.

Of course I will have faith in certain instances. I bet there are very few that don't. It would be a pretty sorry state of affairs if we had to go through life not trusting or believing in some things in life or people.

Its all down to you where you choose to put that faith. I have a wife and good friends whom I will trust completely. They have never let me down. I am also prepared to trust in organisations and in other items that I have heard about, although I am not so stupid as not to be careful when I think it is necessary. That is all the same thing when it comes to calling it "Faith". I may well decide to trust in what I am told by someone or other because they have proved themselves in the past.

Science is not black and white when it comes to matters which cannot be proved. All very fine to base a theory on a certain train of facts or possible happening, but you can't take it as read until there is positive proof. I don't necessarily decry all these theories, and they may well find out significantly more in the future. There may well have been a big bang to start the Universe, is it the only Universe? How did that bang start? it can't have come from nothing if you want to believe the laws of nature and science. Where did the original bit of matter or energy come from? Consider all those galaxies and stars etc which all coalesced from that one bang! The theories sound attractive, but they cannot be accepted yet.

How about Life? Its possible to synthesize organic compounds. But how can one make them live? They only way we can start life at the moment is in the time honoured manner, or using IVF but still only with an ovum and a sperm! Do you think that man will ever be able to create life artificially?

Its all a bit mind boggling really if you get into deep thought about it all.

Thank you for your respect for my stance as you say, and you wiil know already that I feel similarly about your beliefs. We have to accept that neither of us know any more about the beginning of it all than the other, eventually we will know, or we wont-depending!

Les

Alan C

Les, we have the start of a love in my friend...

But I want to focus on that significant statement..... I'm not sure if you meant it in the way I've read it (though I can see no other way), but I couldn't have said it better.

That last word. Proof is entirely what science is about. Working tirelessly and diligently to find that proof whilst working in a sea of uncertainty and theory. That's its beauty. The freedom to go searching for the answer.

But that statement flies directly in the face of religion too. The bible is no proof at all. Therefore the existence of god, Jesus and every single line in the bible cannot be taken as read. Simply because there is no proof. Not one single shred of evidence. Not even the smallest scrap of proof.

The whole of religion perches on this single unproven uncertainty.

And you, from your religious (or pseudo religious standpoint) have neatly summed that up.

Leslie

I have not mentioned the bible Alan.

My point was that to believe the scientific theories to be right you would need faith in the same way that you would to believe that there is an all powerful being who is responsible for it all. No one can prove His existence or not either, it is a matter of how you personally choose to feel personally.

Les

Alan C

Sorry Les but that is pure rubbish.

A theory requires no faith at all. Any theory is going to be based on assumptions and hypotheses. This is as the opposite end of the spectrum to faith.

Theories can and usually incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses:

• a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organised system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.
• hypothesis: a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory

Where is faith in these two simple definitions?

Your attempt at comparing the existence of a supreme being that created the universe and everything in it to, say, how the scientific theories around how the universe began is the biggest mistake you can make and is a common utterly fatal error. Why?

The theories around the universes existence (which is as big a question as whether god exists) are based upon certain baseline and accepted facts. Einstein's calculations and the many physical and mathematical constants that govern our very life are accepted facts. The role of science is to take these facts and push them into unknown areas where theories are created. A scientist will be the first to say they don't know the answer to many questions. But these facts taken to hypothetical levels are allowed to be (must be) challenged.

Gods existence is pure hypothesis and conjecture. There is no factual base with which to start. Nothing. Zero. This is why you need a fantastic leap of faith to belief. Coupled with the fact that in some (if not most) religious quarters, the word of god as laid down in the bible is not to be (must not be) challenged.

See the difference?
One has some claim to an answer (or possible answers) through knowledge and the continue quest to push that knowledge. Faith has nothing to do with it. The other has absolutely zero evidence to start with and was ordained to be the answer and therefore no need to look further some 2,000 years ago. Therefore faith must be applied in order to come up the answer.

Leslie

It is not only unfair but pretty ill mannered to state that what I said was rubbish. Such an attitude does not strengthen your argument either.

Had you understood what I was saying you would have realised that I was not talking in positives but suggesting possibilities.

I have never denied that science has found and will doubtless find more real facts with regard to the start of the universe etc. What do you mean by the term "accepted" when it comes to facts by the way?

Whatever you say, theories have not been proved but point the way to a possible answer.

Neither of us can prove what we say to be incontrovertibly true. You have faith in the way you want to go and so do I. I choose to believe in the possibility that I have stated.

I don't really care what you want to believe, but you are entitled to do so and I would not try to change your thinking.

At the very start of all this posturing, I said that I respect your right to follow your own path and feel that it is only right that I should also expect some tolerance from your direction also and not have to put up with unpleasantness and insults over my beliefs. ie. it is just not necessary for you to blow your own trumpet at my expense.

All this demonstrates the futility of having such a discussion as I in fact stated in the first place.

Les

Alan C

I stand by my comment. I took that statement as you wrote it. There was no 'possibilities' about it as you said 'my point was...', That's pretty clear and direct to me.

Scientific theories are simply that; conjecture and hypothesis. To state that I need some faith in order to see them as they are misses the point about scientific postulation and faith in general completely.

I feel you are now on religious shaky ground where religious types start saying 'you wouldn't understand' or 'god moves in mysterious ways'.

Do you not agree that many physical universal constants exist such as gravity, the speed of light, elementary and nuclear particles and death to name but a few? These are accepted proofs and our daily life if ruled by them. The bible has no such proofs. In fact Jesus resurrected and being borne to heaven breaks two of these fundamental rules (unless of course we look to the Koran to say he (the prophet) was borne on a winged horse.....).

No proof of course, just a story written 80 or so after the fact....

I don't know what this means. Are you saying religious theories? How can it be a theory?

1. The bible is supposed to be the last unutterable word of god. That's not a theory. That's extant. Literal. No more argument. Job done.

2. It has no proven baseline. A theory must start with some form of baseline. The bible has none. Not one provable fact about it. Zero.

All historical and actual accounts of the various census's are even against the biblical 'facts'. In fact, for such a monumental time in our history there's surprisingly little about all the miracles and plagues and destruction of whole villages and new born children etc etc etc.. We know more about Tutankhamun who ruled some 1,300 before christ's coming than we do of christ himself.. Strange that, don't you think?

If you mean Atheists have no proof the other way, then what you really meant to say was that the bible is just a series of collated stories and hearsay. All written some 80+ years after the events they purport to claim knowledge of. All of them proven to be full of holes and inconsistencies. The various gospels contradict and offer slightly differing views on events. And yes I could list dozens of examples..... please list me the examples where the various mathematical and physical universal constants are false.

If we go with your definition, then I can put ANY fictional book to you and say Unicorn's, Goblins and faeries are theories!

I feel you need to get off this shaky religious ground before you make yourself look foolish.

I'm not here to convert you. Faith cannot be reasoned with. Your brain is wired to need some answer (however small). Mine isn't. You're deluded to a degree... but I still resepct you for sticking to your side. I just wish you could offer up a single iota of truth to me.. rather than 'it just is'.....

Leslie

As I thought, this discussion is a waste of time. You have not really taken on board anything much of what I said. I think you are so tied up in your mind over your ideas about any form of religion and the only bit of proof that you can trot out, that you are blind to any other possible way of considering the subject.

I have not ventured onto any kind of "shaky ground", I did not say any of those things you have accused me of. I think in fact that you have deluded yourself into believing some things which suit your attitude to the whole business and you have put me into a division which bears no relation to the truth of the matter.

Nowhere have I denied the existence of those "constants" that you mention. They are not even theories anyway but have been determined by measurement or by empirical methods. Why do you put such denials into my mouth? Why do you keep wittling on about the Bible when I have not included it into the discussion at any time?

You have virtually ignored what I said but keep on trotting out your well worn accusations against the Bible as though that is the "be all" of any proof against any form of belief in religion or the existence of an all powerful entity.

Kindly show me where I said that"God moves in mysterious ways" etc. You should not base your attempts at an argument on assumptions!

Les

Alan C

I'm not caught up in anything. This thread is about being a Muslim 1st (with the associated religion) and British 2nd... not about Atheism.

I and this thread are challenging that stance and challenging religion. It's up to you and other religious people to answer the questions put forward... if you want to challenge Atheism, then start another thread and I'll happily join in.

Read the line again... I said:

I said you were on shaky ground... Nothing more. So may I suggest that YOU re-read what I said as no assumptions were made. I'm afraid you show the same narrow, blinkered approach that most if not all religious people do when trying to defend the indefensible.

Anyway.. and are you ready for this checkmate move that follows your very own statement and rules to me?

You're the one basing your whole series of arguments and, far more sadly, your belief system (limited by you cherry picking, choosing and selecting the nicer things from the bible) and way of life on a complete and total assumption that has not a single shred of evidence to support it. Not one. Zero.

Game over.

Leslie

Yet another muddled post from you.

I sometimes wonder if you have really read anything I have posted! Where for instance have I done any cherry picking or picked the "nicer parts of the Bible"?

I put forward some possibiities, never said anything about proving them anyway, and as i said before-never mentioned the Bible.

What I was saying had nothing to do with any particular one of the religions for a start.

You lead me to believe that you have not understood anything about what I was presenting as a discussion.

As I said in the first place-completely futile to suggest anything which you might take as refuting your ideas since you will only produce a bunch of accusations which are irrelevant to what was said anyway!

Les

GC8WRX

Why not just accept that most muslims would be happy with sharia law in the uk.

They dont like us or our values, they constantly spout ****e about alcohol, promiscuity, family values (while forcing a 17 year old to marry a 30 year old!) but refuse to leave.



Why?


If you dont like our values , please **** off to somewhere where the values you hold so dear are upheld, dont try to change ours.

I like going on the ****, i like promiscuity, i liike looking at scantily clad women, if you dont **** off!


No one has answered the question "if you hates us and our values so much, why are you here?"

Luan Pra bang

This post hints at the kind of stupidity that I have only read about in books or seen on TV
you have broken some pretty special records for ignorance on this site and shown a complete inability to absorb any of the knowledge or advice that is freely available on this forum.

GC8WRX

Still not answered the question!

The Zohan

Oh come opff it, have a look back through some of your previous posts

GC8WRX

Still no answer!

Alan C

Sorry mate. Your protestations don't wash. I've read everything you've written and placed my answers accordingly. Some of them follow on or relate to previous answers you've given on other threads (such as living your life by certain morals extracted from the bible), so I'm afraid I concede nothing in your attempt to lay down some fog.

And on the contrary. I (and any Atheist, Agnostic or free thinker here) am more than open to accept your views and opinions. Where we differ is that I am open to these where there is some proof. Even the smallest fragment or iota of proof. Even something remotely small, minuscule and tangible in which to start a theory...!! I'd be happy to take that, dissect it, challenge it and put it through its paces in order to firm it up or discard it. But you provide nothing. In fact you can't provide anything anyway, because none exist. Nothing. Zero. It's only in your head. This is why you are unable to challenge any of this!! Again, because it's in your head.

You on the other hand (regardless of you saying you recognise certain facts and evidences from science) still believe in a god. Going against all possible evidence, history and logic and basing it all on faith. The irony is that you agree you base your living experiences on faith (i.e. you have faith in your family, friends and what's around you) because that's real. Tangible. Touchable. Can be experienced. Religion provides nothing of this. Just a 'feeling'....

That's the sad part about all of this. Lives wasted (not yours BTW as you're a very conservative and selectable Christian. Though I wonder why you call yourself Christian at all considering the select nature of your belief.)

Luan Pra bang

that is a blatant lie and however much evidence that can be presented to the contrary you will never change your mind.

Again completely untrue I have never once met a Muslim who has done this but again why let reality get in the way of good old fashioned rascism.






So if a white british person complains about the sandards and morality in todays GB its OK but if a Muslim British person comlains about the t in the UK they hahe same thing in the uk the have to '**** off' ?

And ???




[/quote]No one has answered the question "if you hates us and our values so much, why are you here?"[/QUOTE]

That very same question was answered by one of the very small number of random nut jobs who was protesting at the soldiers funeral in an article that was linked to this site so if you are incapable if even reading that then I won;t waste my breath.


If you had phrased your question to respond to specific minority groups of muslims who fit your racist stereo type then it would be worthy of a decent response.

Alan C

Luan.

GC8's obvious frustration is borne from those very minorities getting a seemingly unfair amount of airtime compared to their friendly, decent and upstanding brethren. The same brethren who are seemingly incapable of mounting a decent defence against this vocal minority.

Part of the frustration being felt in the UK is just how quiet and ineffectual this much larger group is. A few more mosques or area groups reporting such behaviour (suspicious or overt) would go a long way to restoring some faith in the Muslim community and would show their commitment to a peaceful co-existence.

But unfortunately, the quiet, insular and large vacuum they leave is being filled with suspicion, mistrust and scepticism. Reports of 180 Muslim children being identified as potential Islamic extremists isn't just a (Guardian) crass headline. It show a real and present danger. These figures aren't massaged or made up. This is real. Happening today. Probably in your street.

It is up to these groups to put this right now.

Luan Pra bang

There has been large scale condemnation of these idiots by a variety of muslims and steps taken in Mosques up and down the country to keep them out but this is rarely noticed by those who choose to hold on to a prejudice that allows them to revert to a form of racism that is now acceptable where as your old style typicial rascism is frowned upon.

Alan C

This view is often held by those seeking to unjustly defend a weak position.

Please define 'large scale'. As I've heard nothing apart from some innefectual squeeks when presented with a news camera. I see nothing proactive. Nothing vocal. Nothing positive. Nothing effective.

It takes a Police report to identify these children being grromed for fundamentalism rather than it coming from within the community.

I don't know your agenda, but don't delude yourself that what we've heard so far is 'large scale'. Until we do, then this will only get worse.

Leslie

Having re-read my posts, it looks as though you might be beginning to understand what I was saying at last.

Apart from my beliefs in the likelihood of a superior being there is no reason why I cannot accept scientific facts and also Darwin's theory of evolution for that matter. Even Darwin said that he thought there had to be some sort of a master plan behind the existence of the World. His theory does go against the old fixed religious ideas of his time of course, but still does not preclude the possibilty of the existence of an all powerful being. It was an interesting programme about Darwin and religion last night,I wonder if you watched it. Worth seeing if you did-could give you a few more things to consider.

Right from the outset I said that I could no more prove God's existence than you can that He does not exist. Yes it is a feeling of course and I obviously subcribe to it having thought long and hard about the matter.
You can witter on as much as you like about the necessity of proof but you have to have the proof yourself about your ideas if you want to be able to shout Him down in a belivable manner. Lateral thinking is King!

Science is not the whole answer, and many eminent scientists have a strong belief in God. Yes theories abound based on certain facts but there is no hard proof of those theories as yet. i am sure they will find out more in the future,maybe even see the Higg's boson, but wiil that prove any more?

I would like to know where I have quoted the Bible to promote my feelings about morality etc. I cannot remember saying anything like that and would be grateful if you could show that. My feelings in that direction are based more on natural law and common decency in fact. If the Bible backs that up-so much the better! Depite your assumptions and statements, I have never mentioned the Bible in these discussions and in truth you don't even know my feelings in that direction anyway.

As I said before, both your beliefs and mine depend on faith, yours in scientific theories and mine on my basic tenets about the existence of a superior being who set it all off. Neither of us can prove anything either way as yet.

Les

Alan C

And you're misreading mine and making those classic religious mistakes and simple lies that seem to get rolled out way too often by religious types with nothing to hang their belief on apart from pure faith.

It is well known that Darwin was quite orthodox in his early life. Like any other religious indoctrination at that time he had no choice. Also like most people of the time, standing against religion was tantamount to personal suicide. That's why it took him some 20 years to publish his work. That just one sad indictment about religion. But he was quite clear that once his theory was in the making. His personal god died.

There's plenty more.....

You really ought to get your facts right before posting such obvious untruths......

I'll repeat. I have no 'faith' that science holds the answer. I have faith that the train will turn up roughly on time, because I've caught it before, there's a timetable and other people there. That's as far as it goes. But you'll notice that there's some known and proven baselines there... so my faith is well founded. Yours isn't. Pure and simple.

What! So a lack of utter proof. The complete lack of logic. Major biblical historical events not recorded. The hundreds of recorded biblical discrepancies. The obvious Biblical untruths (age of the earth being one). The translation errors. The fantastical events that have never been repeated. The total lack of any god protecting those that worship him. The fact that the bible is simply a written story with not one ounce of proof to support anything written. The pretty much solid evolutionary understanding. The fact that you believe in one god that's competed with hundreds of others over the centuries. The fact that science advancement has made religion change it's story and stance many times and revert to saying that some of the 'true' stories are actually allegory and parable now?

Isn't this enough for you? You need more?

Finally. To check mate you once again....(please tell me when you get tired of constantly painting yourself into a corner) I have as much need to disprove the existence in some fantasy celestial deity as I have in disproving fantasy aliens, faeries, ghosts, unicorns, dragons, leprechauns to name a few of the hundreds of other fantasy stories to you. This includes orbiting and flying teapots and the Loch Ness Monster. In fact, there's more proof of Aliens existing than the accumulated proof from thousands of years of some totally missing god can deliver.

I don't need to trouble myself with disproving god as each one of these, every one, have as much proof of existence as god. That's how pathetic it all is.

To put it another way. If you believe in god due to one book that self proclaims to be the voice of god? Then you should technically believe in all of the above.

What tenets are these? The ones written 2,000 years ago when they thought the earth was flat, they prayed to rain and sun gods, sacrificed men, women, children and animals to help the crops grow? The one's where the sun rotated around us with not the simplest notion of bacteria or how illnesses came about? The ones promising eternal damnation and burning in hell (including preaching this to children) for not believing? Those tenets? Or just the selected nice, good ones that can live safe in your head. Please. You really need to have a better grounding in substance and an iota of proof before saying stuff like that!

Laughable.

Leslie

Alan C

What a rant that was! My forecast of how this discussion would deteriorate was close to the mark then!

Once again you show that you just have not understood what I have been saying. As ever you decend into your railing against the Bible which incidentally you have no proof against anyway, which is strange when you keep wittering on about the necessity of proof of what I say, when I have not mentioned the Bible with regard to anything I have said about my personal beliefs. You seem to be unable to reproduce where I quoted the Bible in support of my moral outlook as you said I had done. I would be interested to know where I said that! Incidentally, historical records do not have to depend on logic.

All your imaginary quotes about "Checkmate" etc come to nothing anyway. What on earth has a belief in a superior being got to do with being forced to believe in fairies etc.? You are beginning to scrape the barrel now!

You have a powerful imagination if somewhat inaccurate I must say. Why are you telling me what I have in my mind when you plainly have no idea whatsoever. Once again you are making gross assumptions in a vain effort to undermine what I have actually said. Its almost like sheer desperation in fact! Where have I said what you accuse me of believing in your final paragraph?

Just to put you right by the way, Charles Darwin although he renounced Christianity declared to friends in his letters that he was by no means an atheist. He believed, as I said in my previous post, that there must be a superior being at the beginning of it all.
I did say before of course that there is no reason why his theory of evolution should deny the existence of such a being.

Yet again, as I said earlier, I can't prove that there is a God and you can't prove there isn't, in spite of your ever more manic posts!

You can't believably say I need proof of what I believe when you say that you don't need proof to say that I am wrong!

Les

GC8WRX

Still no answer!

Alan C

I give up. I provided a paragraph in my last post that contained multiple proofs and issues against the bible. I'm not going to repeat it again because of your blindness. I'm tired of providing issues to be debated, only for you to gloss over them saying I've provided none....

I never said they did. I said both logic and history were firmly against the accuracy of the bible and its teachings.

Jesus Christ man.... I beg you.. please read what I said!!!

This means god is on the same footing because they are all fantasy... they each have zero proof. Nothing. None at all. Religion cannot provide any! ergo.. they will be treated the same!

Again, you gloss over my answers. As if they're not there. I can't do any more if you're simply going to ignore them and simply use childish tactics to switch the argument away from you without even answering anything.


Sigh . Another narrow minded and down right lie.... Like Einstein, religion has attempted to twist, misquote and take out of context Darwin's comments and beliefs to suit themselves. Richard Dawkins has often said he's going to record his last moments so that religious types can't hijack his life's work to their more desperate ends.

Simply put; If Darwin believed in a god, then his life's work would be fake.
I'll assume you've neither read The origin of Species, his Auto-biography or studied his life and are therefore making the same gross assumptions you accuse me of.

If two quotes I provided weren't enough then maybe this will help. Though I doubt it, as you can easily find a religious site that twists it. Religion is quite adept at taking a story and twisting it....so it should have no trouble taking a piece of fact to the same ends.

I mean, why have proof to base your beliefs on when any old fantasy story and rumour does the job?

You also have to look at the time he lived as it's imprecise about what constituted theological orthodoxy and conventionality, the convictions that distinguish Christian belief from both theism and deism and the ways in which agnosticism differs from atheism and anti-theism.

He was also kind to his religious friends and stated that it would be easy to see how a deity could be attributed to the wonder that is the Universe. That doesn't make him a believer! Just a scientist who didn't care about religion.

But hey, these are factual statements. I wouldn't expect you to take a single one and just stick to the lies and untruths that seem to do the rounds in order defame him as a person and his work.

Luan Pra bang

People, you included have a knack of hearing what you want to hear and seeing what you want to see, if you were really that interested you would look for yourself and contact the muslim groups and institutions who are combating extremeism, the opposition to the Muslim fundamentalists is in perfect proportion to the tiny number of people who are extremists but you are convinced that Muslims are some scarey bunch of nutters who want sharia law and no amount of forceing reality down your throat will change that.