"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

--Albert Einstein

Other great quotes from famous peeps here:

http://no-god.com/article/quote.html

 

Well that is what I was taught anyway. That programme, as interesting as it was, seemed to be stretching it a bit. It was as though they were searching for something convenient to fit what they were saying.

How do you know there are no time travellers though?

Les

 

But Les - that's the fundamental difference between believers and non believers.

As far as I'm concerned believing in a being that created the whole universe (and anything else out there) is exactly the same as believing he takes the form of Mickey Mouse (or Elvis).

 

Please oh please tell me that you don't seriously believe this?????
The Bible is a story book and NOT the truth. Quite entertaining in parts though.
Please show me the irrefutable "Proof" as you put it about the Bible.

 

He may have been pretty good on relativity, but that does not necessarily qualify him to pronounce on life etc. Same for all those whose lives are totally bound up with science. They will see one side of it, but not necessarily both.

If you specifically want to believe that only science is the answer, it is easy enough to find plenty of sayings to back it up of course.

It is of course, much more convenient not to believe in a God anyway.

All down to the individual.

Les

 

Chinese whispers - did anyone ever play it?

Try playing it over 2000 years.
I bet the first whisper to the last would have changed considerably.

 

The earliest fragments of John's Gospel that have been discovered were no earlier than about 80 AD IIRC. How accurate would factual accounts written from memory be of the Great Depression if they were written now by someone with personal memory of the events?

Even if historical facts can be corroborated, it in no way corroborates miracles such as healing and resurrection.

Most Christian doctrine is a result of Paul's writings, who probably had temporal lobe epilepsy, migraines or hallucinations due to another cause.

Faith is a construct used to opt out of reasoning and evidence IMHO.

Much religious belief would meet the criteria for delusions and hallucinations if it wasn't for religion being an exception in the definitions.

Don't agree Les. It is a common idea trotted out in tracts and Alpha courses, but it can be quite cosy and convenient to believe in a God too.

 

You're joking right? I mean, surely, you must be.

The earliest Gospel wasn't written until about 70 AD. The person who wrote it will not have met Jesus, and probably won't have talked to anyone who would have been alive when Jesus was. That's the earliest one!

So, none of the Gospels were written by anyone who had been alive when Jesus was, and there is only a remote possibility that one of them was written by someone who could have spoken to someone who was alive at the time of Jesus.

Now, we move on to contemporary accounts of Jesus. There is not a single contemporary account of Jesus. Not one. Zip. Nada. Now I find this quite strange, especially as he supposedly had an audience with Herod at his 'trial' and was executed by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish high priests. He also was carried into Jerusalem like some sort of king, had various run ins with Ciaphus and his crew. Nothing. Not even some graffitti! Now that may sound silly, but there's plenty of graffitti on buildings from that time relating to all sorts of things, just like now.

The resurrection doesn't even appear in the early versions of the gospels, so who are these people who had seen it?

The usual one which is trumpeted by Christians is Josephus, who was born in 37 AD and wrote "The Jewish Wars" and "Antiquities" some 60 years later. In Antiquities, there is one paragraph about Jesus, but only in reference to someone else mentioning him, if that makes sense. This is the closest thing we have to an unbiased mentioning of someone who at the time, so it is reported, was hailed as the Messiah. The gospels don't really count for two reasons, they are obviously biased as written by Christians, and they are way too late to have any historical value.

Now, I was born in 1967, so the earlist writing of Jesus would be like me writing about someone who died in 1962, from sources who had not met him either, was not mentioned in any writings or documents up to and including 1962 (including his execution documents), and you believing that person existed. Don't forget we would need to have an average life span of no more than 40 years to complete the illusion, so by the time I write this book, it is unlikely that anyone would still be alive who met him as an adult.

None of what I have just written is disputed, by the Church, or historians. Do you still believe that the new testament is 'proof' that Jesus existed?

I think I saw the same one Les! It was very interesting, but I got the impression that nohting was travelling faster than light, rather space was expanding at faster than light, which is quite different. Einstein's law states that nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum, but space is different.

Geezer

 

Actually, when I come to think about it, it would be unfair to preclude them both anyway. We are told we must be inclusive!

If he can do all that, he is entitled to look like whoever he wants.

If someone says that he believes there is a God who is omnipotent my point is that he is perfectly entitled to do that. It does not mean that I have to believe the same as he does though.

You are trying to say that he should not be allowed to get away with that, which amounts to religious persecution.

If I dont believe what he is saying, that does not give me the right to insult him for his beliefs. I am still entitled however to say that I don't believe him, but in a civilised manner. Is it really necessary to be unpleasant about it? Surely your argument should be strong enough without requiring to be boosted by offensive remarks!

It is all down to respecting the right of anyone to formulate their own ideas whether you agree or not.

I wonder if that is clear enough for now.

Les

 

Plausible are you taking the p1ss or high on drugs?

plausible PLEASE tell me you are deluded

 

Yes John but all that church going and praying, and dressing up on a Sunday etc. can be very restricting can't it?

Funny thing is, it seems to me that you would need quite a bit of "faith" to accept all the scientific pronouncements when they are still based on so much theory.

Les

 

You misunderstand how plausible I believe God is

If there is a god he's much more likely to look like T-Rex than Marc Bolan

 

Well, you could argue that, but theory still only covers a small amount. What about all the stuff which is proven and not theory, but still contradicts the stuff in religion, and the stuff in religion has no proof whatsoever?

Geezer

 

Yes I did say in my post that it was the expansion of the outer part of the Universe which was happening faster than light speed. But doesn't that mean that the items on that part of the Universe are travelling at those speeds. I have to say they went a bit "blurred" when they got to that bit. I don't think I had dropped off for that part of it!

Its all getting difficult to encompass when you start thinking about the distances, time, and speed involved.

Les

 

Jasey what do you actually believe in ?

 

I have no problem with religion or religious people who don't try and push their impossible beliefs on either myself or my family.
I do though, Have a problem with religion or religious people who shout their mouths off without having the slightest ounce of proof to back up what they are proposing.

 

Buys Frosticles a virtual pint

 

Sluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp

 

we're born and some time later we die - much like everything else on the planet.

 

Who needs proof when you can have faith!

 

The Classic quote of religious ner ner's.

 

Of course I am!!!

 

LOL, Just as I realised and changed my reply

 

maybe not the dominant species, but Man was far more superior in intelligence to be created to be in charge of all animals.


Like wise you can not give evidence to prove it wrong. just like anyone else, at the end of the day religion comes down to faith and belief, if you do not have faith and belief that's your prerogative to think what you want. But you want change anything.

 

BLINKIN ECK, just read what you've put, I think you have a point, I might now ring Daybreak and get Adrian to do a feature on it as this is truely breaking news.. everyone should hear what you have to say.

 

woz dat on Tv, didn't your mum tell you not to believe everything you see on telly?


If you want to write a book on it and follow him.... no ones stopping you




ps: i need to multi quote more lol

 

Time is relative and we all travel through time which means we are all time travellers, the only difference being the speed at which we do it. If the astronaut decided to orbited the Earth at the speed of light for 5 minutes in his spaceship, he will observe no time difference in his immediate surroundings, but if he looked out of his window would see the Earth and everything outside his ship rapidly changing. Mission control tracking his ship will also observe no time difference in their immediate surroundings, but looking up at the ship, it would be "frozen" in space for years.

Travelling back in time is impossible since it requires infinite amount of energy and also would create a paradox since you cannot go back on your own existence. Therefore time travel "Hollywood" style is simply not possible.

Here's a thought. If black holes have infinite density and therefore anything pulled in would have infinite buoyancy and would therefore be shot out again at infinite speed. What would happen then?

 

Time is relative and we all travel through time which means we are all time travellers, the only difference being the speed at which we do it. If the astronaut decided to orbited the Earth at the speed of light for 5 minutes in his spaceship, he will observe no time difference in his immediate surroundings, but if he looked out of his window would see the Earth and everything outside his ship rapidly changing. Mission control tracking his ship will also observe no time difference in their immediate surroundings, but looking up at the ship, it would be "frozen" in space for years.

Travelling back in time is impossible since it requires infinite amount of energy and also would create a paradox since you cannot go back on your own existence. Therefore time travel "Hollywood" style is simply not possible.

Here's a thought. If black holes have infinite density, anything pulled in would have infinite buoyancy and would therefore be shot out again at infinite speed. What would happen then?

 

God would catch it

 

A typical believer's answer is that one........ Convince me that what you believe in is true with undeniable evidence........(Bet you can't )