Are you a Christian?

[DCE]

Y
Evolution is proved by literally millions of pieces of evidence across many branches of science from embryology, geology, paleontology, genetics and cell biology (etc). It does not depend on an unqualified and half understood opinion of an amateur.

a. evolved from simpler organs and structures
b. was created by god fully formed as we see it today
c. came about by another process we don't know about yet

It came about by another process which you don't want to know about it seems.

Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.

But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device.

A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed.

So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved?

No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.

If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain?

Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did?

Jastrow concluded: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.

 

[DCE]

I was thinking the same thing

There's still a few too many "Die hard believers" though

Some quotes to think about.

Robert Jastrow (September 7, 1925 – February 8, 2008) was an American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist.

Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain.

Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause...

"This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover.

When that happens, the scientist has lost control.

 

[benjamin_c]

It came about by another process which you don't want to know about it seems.

Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.

But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device.

A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed.

So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved?

No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.

If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain?

Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did?

Jastrow concluded: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.

Firstly i'd like to thank you for bringing the thread back on subject!

Occam's razor needs to be applied here, what's more realistic? That live evolved from an amazing natural process that we do not totally understand but we know enough about it to support it and consider it to be factual. or that some even more fantastically complicated being created the earth and all people on it for some random reason? if the later is what you believe then why? why do you believe such an illogical notion, where did this being (god) how does this being have powers that defy all of physics as we know it? if this being does exist surely it would have come up with a more sophisticated way to communicate with us instead of some tatty old scripts and deluded preachers? And further more if humanity was created by this so called “god” then surely ‘he’ would have done a better job of making us, we’re far from perfect. So if god does exist he’s pretty stupid in my opinion for not utilising all this power he apparently has and creating something better than us… And as for jesus…. What kind of person would let their so called “son” be nailed to a cross and just sit back and watch from heaven? Surely if jesus did ever exist he would have had the powers of superman?

And then if “god” does exist, who or what created it? And why? And if they did they obviously have far to much time on their hands or wings… the whole concept is quite laughable to be honest….

 

[benjamin_c]

Some quotes to think about.

Robert Jastrow (September 7, 1925 – February 8, 2008) was an American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist.

Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain.

Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause...

"This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover.

When that happens, the scientist has lost control.

Science isn't about control, it's about understanding, looking at the facts and making a rational conclusion, there's going to be the odd scientist who has faith, but they're likely to be the minority!
i believe in a first cause, but not a religious one, i don't know what it was but i am confident that it wasn't someone sitting in the clouds with the angels and fairies.....

 

[cjd]

It seems that Stephen Hawking has proved - to himself at least - that God is not needed for the creation of the universe.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...od-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

I have no way of understanding this, it would be so much easier to just say God did it wouldn't i?

 

[bdw]

There is no god. I am totally convinced of that. There is no heaven, hell or judgement day. I am also convinced of that. Who created the Universe? I don't know. Do I need to know? I don't think because I am happy to accept that some things will never be explained. Just be good and enjoy the one life you have.

Do human beings have inherent back problems because we evolved as homo erectus from creatures who moved on all fours or because one of your many gods was having an off day at the drawing board?

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for your gods, heavens and hells is totally non-existent. Talking about judgement days, if this was explored in an open court case to prove one theory or another I know what judgement my money would be on.

Now there's a thought...

.

 

[papverpoppies]

Strange this thread about God, and all the 'did he didn't he exist'!

There appears to be a member in possible 'melt down' on here, and apart from two mods and a few other members, no one else seems to give a stuff.

How very Godly!!

Poppy xx

 

[benjamin_c]

Strange this thread about God, and all the 'did he didn't he exist'!

There appears to be a member in possible 'melt down' on here, and apart from two mods and a few other members, no one else seems to give a stuff.

How very Godly!!

Poppy xx

I'm sure gods love is with them they'll be fine

Psalm 32:8
I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go, I will counsel you and watch over you.


lol

 

[benjamin_c]

It seems that Stephen Hawking has proved - to himself at least - that God is not needed for the creation of the universe.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...od-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

I have no way of understanding this, it would be so much easier to just say God did it wouldn't i?

Personally i respect Stephen Hawkings judgment on such matters, he clearly has an amazing mind and can understand things that many of us can only hope to..

i only wish more people would respect the intelect of great men over a fairy tale

The universe is an amazing and interesting place, no need to make up stories to make it more complicated

 

[quikshop]

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go, I will counsel you and watch over you.

More to be pitied than scolded. All I can hear are duelling banjos

 

[dagr]

Strange this thread about God, and all the 'did he didn't he exist'!

There appears to be a member in possible 'melt down' on here, and apart from two mods and a few other members, no one else seems to give a stuff.

How very Godly!!

Poppy xx

Afraid you've lost me with that one. Is there something I've missed from another thread?

 

[papverpoppies]

Afraid you've lost me with that one. Is there something I've missed from another thread?

Some posts have been removed, but some are still there (or they were)!
Some members know what was happening, and some have tried to help, so my email below is not directed at all.

I was not going to reply to this thread – as I feel there can never be any answers.

Myself I am a non believer, but that is me, and we are each free to choose our religion and be believers or not.

What I do not understand is how so many people could write such complicated and lengthy replies as to how ‘their’ religion or non religion stacks up better than the next persons, and why God did or did not exist – yet ignore the possible cries for help from a fellow member.

Is that what was have come to, how to ignore someone and their suffering, if we ignore it/her it will go away.

I do not know the person in question, other than from her postings on this board, but when someone possibly needs help, its worrying to think ‘that so many ignored her, and carried on writing about God, he would be really impressed I am sure (if he did exist) to think that we find writing and philosophising about him, more important than trying to help someone.

Most days the papers tell stories of people who died alone, or took their own lives, easy to understand and see why - when most people look the other way.

Its not about how religious you are, it’s about ‘you’ and how far you are prepared to go, to help someone.

 

[Top Hat]

Some posts have been removed, but some are still there (or they were)!
Some members know what was happening, and some have tried to help, so my email below is not directed at all.

I was not going to reply to this thread – as I feel there can never be any answers.

Myself I am a non believer, but that is me, and we are each free to choose our religion and be believers or not.

What I do not understand is how so many people could write such complicated and lengthy replies as to how ‘their’ religion or non religion stacks up better than the next persons, and why God did or did not exist – yet ignore the possible cries for help from a fellow member.

Is that what was have come to, how to ignore someone and their suffering, if we ignore it/her it will go away.

I do not know the person in question, other than from her postings on this board, but when someone possibly needs help, its worrying to think ‘that so many ignored her, and carried on writing about God, he would be really impressed I am sure (if he did exist) to think that we find writing and philosophising about him, more important than trying to help someone.

Most days the papers tell stories of people who died alone, or took their own lives, easy to understand and see why - when most people look the other way.

Its not about how religious you are, it’s about ‘you’ and how far you are prepared to go, to help someone.

I must of totally missed this, I hope it all works out, what ever it is.

 

Some posts have been removed, but some are still there (or they were)!
Some members know what was happening, and some have tried to help, so my email below is not directed at all.

I was not going to reply to this thread – as I feel there can never be any answers.

Myself I am a non believer, but that is me, and we are each free to choose our religion and be believers or not.

What I do not understand is how so many people could write such complicated and lengthy replies as to how ‘their’ religion or non religion stacks up better than the next persons, and why God did or did not exist – yet ignore the possible cries for help from a fellow member.

Is that what was have come to, how to ignore someone and their suffering, if we ignore it/her it will go away.

I do not know the person in question, other than from her postings on this board, but when someone possibly needs help, its worrying to think ‘that so many ignored her, and carried on writing about God, he would be really impressed I am sure (if he did exist) to think that we find writing and philosophising about him, more important than trying to help someone.

Most days the papers tell stories of people who died alone, or took their own lives, easy to understand and see why - when most people look the other way.

Its not about how religious you are, it’s about ‘you’ and how far you are prepared to go, to help someone.

Bit unfair Poppy I am sure that a lot of members were totally unaware of what was happening to the member.

we have so many silly buggers messing about on here that it would be easy to miss.

Earl

 

[bdw]

Bit unfair Poppy I am sure that a lot of members were totally unaware of what was happening to the member.

I agree, I am afraid I haven't got a clue what you are talking about? :|

 

[DCE]

Bit unfair Poppy I am sure that a lot of members were totally unaware of what was happening to the member. Earl

I did not have a clue what was happening either, what was being said seemed to be in sort of code, which only certain other members would understand.

Hope the member is able to regain their peace of mind, and sort out any problems they have.

 

[DCE]

So if god does exist he’s pretty stupid in my opinion for not utilising all this power he apparently has and creating something better than us… And as for jesus…. What kind of person would let their so called “son” be nailed to a cross and just sit back and watch from heaven? Surely if jesus did ever exist he would have had the powers of superman?

And then if “god” does exist, who or what created it? And why? And if they did they obviously have far to much time on their hands or wings… the whole concept is quite laughable to be honest….

By maintaining integrity to God down till his death, Jesus proved that Adam’s sin was not due to any flaw in the Creator’s designing of man but that it is possible for a human to maintain perfect godly devotion even under severe pressure, and thus Jesus vindicated God as Creator and Universal Sovereign.

Besides that, God had purposed that Jesus’ death would provide the perfect human sacrifice needed to ransom Adam’s offspring, and thus make it possible for billions who would exercise faith to live forever in a paradise earth, in fulfillment of Jehovah’s original purpose and in expression of his great love for mankind.

I would not say that was laughable, in fact it was very loving on God & Jesus, to have provided that ransom sacrifice, which we should really appreciate from the bottom of our hearts, don't you think?

 

[benjamin_c]

By maintaining integrity to God down till his death, Jesus proved that Adam’s sin was not due to any flaw in the Creator’s designing of man but that it is possible for a human to maintain perfect godly devotion even under severe pressure, and thus Jesus vindicated God as Creator and Universal Sovereign.

Besides that, God had purposed that Jesus’ death would provide the perfect human sacrifice needed to ransom Adam’s offspring, and thus make it possible for billions who would exercise faith to live forever in a paradise earth, in fulfillment of Jehovah’s original purpose and in expression of his great love for mankind.

I would not say that was laughable, in fact it was very loving on God & Jesus, to have provided that ransom sacrifice, which we should really appreciate from the bottom of our hearts, don't you think?

It's story but that's all it is, a story, just like Peter Pan, Harry Potter et al, Any adult who takes these stories to be a fact are quite deluded to be honest.
If a god of some kind did exist the world would be a very different place. I actually saw Stephen Hawking on BBC news the other day talking about this, And no one can argue with the fact that Mr Hawking has one of the greatest minds in the world. and he says that the universe was created without god, that god doesn't exist! Professor Hawking and Professor Dawkins have many more reasons for not believing in god than anyone can have for believing in god.
I'll copy a link showing what Professor Hawking said about the matter! Then I'd love to see you have a valid argument against him.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

 

[DCE]

It's story but that's all it is, a story, just like Peter Pan, Harry Potter et al, Any adult who takes these stories to be a fact are quite deluded to be honest.
If a god of some kind did exist the world would be a very different place. I actually saw Stephen Hawking on BBC news the other day talking about this, And no one can argue with the fact that Mr Hawking has one of the greatest minds in the world. and he says that the universe was created without god, that god doesn't exist! Professor Hawking and Professor Dawkins have many more reasons for not believing in god than anyone can have for believing in god.
I'll copy a link showing what Professor Hawking said about the matter! Then I'd love to see you have a valid argument against him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

Scientist Stephen Hawking posed this open question on the Internet: "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?" A month later he confessed: "I don't know the answer. That is why I asked the question, to get people to think about it, and to be aware of the dangers we now face."-THE GUARDIAN, BRITAIN.

If he had read the Bible he would have known the answer to that question.

CAN any man unquestionably be called the greatest man who ever lived? How do you measure a man's greatness? By his military genius? his physical strength? his mental prowess?

The historian H.G.Wells said that a man's greatness can be measured by 'what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him.' Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: "By this test Jesus stands first."

Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled "the Great" even in his own lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet, Napoleon is reported to have said: "Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence."

By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them, Jesus has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand years. As one writer aptly expressed it: "All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully."

Were all these people mentioned above deluded as well?

Peter Pan & Harry Potter, what an insult to the The Greatest man that ever lived".

 

[cjd]

I'll copy a link showing what Professor Hawking said about the matter! Then I'd love to see you have a valid argument against him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

From what's been reported, Hawking's logic is a bit off. (Of course he's not using logic, he's using maths - but even so it's a tortuous argument.)

He appears to be saying that because the laws of physics exist and because those laws inevitably lead to spontaneous creation, then we don't need god as a creator.

Which just leaves the enormous question of where the laws of physics came from....

To get into that it seems to me that you're back into tortured philosophical arguments; but it's obviously something he must feel he has an answer to - I await it with interest. (I don't expect I'll understand it.)

Regardless of that, just like evolution removes the need for a creator of complex biological life, we now have the beginnings of an idea (it's not theory yet by a very long way, except in the layman's sense) that we don't need a creator for matter itself.

 

[benjamin_c]

From what's been reported, Hawking's logic is a bit off. (Of course he's not using logic, he's using maths - but even so it's a tortuous argument.)

He appears to be saying that because the laws of physics exist and because those laws inevitably lead to spontaneous creation, then we don't need god as a creator.

Which just leaves the enormous question of where the laws of physics came from....

To get into that it seems to me that you're back into tortured philosophical arguments; but it's obviously something he must feel he has an answer to - I await it with interest. (I don't expect I'll understand it.)

Regardless of that, just like evolution removes the need for a creator of complex biological life, we now have the beginnings of an idea (it's not theory yet by a very long way, except in the layman's sense) that we don't need a creator for matter itself.

I appreciate your points, what ever happened it's going to be bloody complicated but bringing the supernatural into it just turns a complicated thing into an impossible thing.
Maybe we will never have all the answers

Or we could just be an experiment by aliens haha!


Makes a great debate though haha!

 

[DCE]

I appreciate your points, what ever happened it's going to be bloody complicated but bringing the supernatural into it just turns a complicated thing into an impossible thing.
Maybe we will never have all the answers

Or we could just be an experiment by aliens haha!


Makes a great debate though haha!

Search for Intelligent Life “I have always thought that if they were going to look for intelligence, they ought to start right here in Washington,” declared Senator William Proxmire.

The U.S. Senate responded by cutting out an appropriation to help carry on the search for radio signals from intelligent life in outer space. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) had wanted $1 million for next year and $15 million more during the next seven years to continue the search for intelligent life. “It’s hard enough to find intelligent life right here,” declared the senator. “It may be harder than finding it outside our solar system.”

While scientists are still debating the possibility of life in outer space, priests at the Vatican Observatory, reports the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper, have come to the conclusion that “earth’s inhabitants are not the only creatures of God in the universe. God also created extraterrestrials.” As explained by George Coyne, director of the observatory, “the universe is simply far too large for us to be alone.” To reach these extraterrestrials with the Gospel, several monasteries have been sending the New Testament into space as an encoded message.

What the Vatican would like to know next, says the newspaper, “is whether Jesus Christ has manifested himself on other planets too.” And, adds Coyne, “whether Jesus Christ has also saved the inhabitants” of those planets.

Would you want to join this debate? I doubt it.

 

[benjamin_c]

Search for Intelligent Life “I have always thought that if they were going to look for intelligence, they ought to start right here in Washington,” declared Senator William Proxmire.

The U.S. Senate responded by cutting out an appropriation to help carry on the search for radio signals from intelligent life in outer space. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) had wanted $1 million for next year and $15 million more during the next seven years to continue the search for intelligent life. “It’s hard enough to find intelligent life right here,” declared the senator. “It may be harder than finding it outside our solar system.”

While scientists are still debating the possibility of life in outer space, priests at the Vatican Observatory, reports the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper, have come to the conclusion that “earth’s inhabitants are not the only creatures of God in the universe. God also created extraterrestrials.” As explained by George Coyne, director of the observatory, “the universe is simply far too large for us to be alone.” To reach these extraterrestrials with the Gospel, several monasteries have been sending the New Testament into space as an encoded message.

What the Vatican would like to know next, says the newspaper, “is whether Jesus Christ has manifested himself on other planets too.” And, adds Coyne, “whether Jesus Christ has also saved the inhabitants” of those planets.

Would you want to join this debate? I doubt it.

I'd love to join that debate infact! i agree with most of it tbh, apart from the religious stuff. I'm quite impressed with the Vatican for acknowledging the likelihood of live beyond earth, although in typical Vatican style they have to "god it up"
Personally i imagine that there's many millions of planets with life on, some may be small microorganisms others may have Evolved into fantastic and intelligent beings, i don't believe that they have ever landed on earth though, and if they have the technological ability to do that i would also imagine they'd have the sense not to do that!! Be interesting to see if we ever discover life, or should i say, discover life and make it public knowledge!

 

[cjd]

Would you want to join this debate? I doubt it.

I think you need to think about it DCE.

The Catholics have always been good at appropriating science and working it backwards into their beliefs (only after fighting the new ideas off first of course.) So the last pope decided that evolution was actually true but that god put the soul in Homo sapiens.

So it makes sense for them to start thinking about what they're going to do when extra terrestrial life is found. It won't be deniable unfortunately so they need an explanation that fits with the Jesus myth. That is going to be very hard to do, but I'm sure the Vatican is more than up to the challenge.

At least they're thinking about why god needs a universe of unthinkable size just for us.

 

[benjamin_c]

Scientist Stephen Hawking posed this open question on the Internet: "In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?" A month later he confessed: "I don't know the answer. That is why I asked the question, to get people to think about it, and to be aware of the dangers we now face."-THE GUARDIAN, BRITAIN.

If he had read the Bible he would have known the answer to that question.

CAN any man unquestionably be called the greatest man who ever lived? How do you measure a man's greatness? By his military genius? his physical strength? his mental prowess?

The historian H.G.Wells said that a man's greatness can be measured by 'what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him.' Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: "By this test Jesus stands first."

Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled "the Great" even in his own lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet, Napoleon is reported to have said: "Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence."

By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them, Jesus has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand years. As one writer aptly expressed it: "All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully."

Were all these people mentioned above deluded as well?

Peter Pan & Harry Potter, what an insult to the The Greatest man that ever lived".

YES, yes they where they were deluded by the same indoctrination and brainwashing as most religious people are today, please don't mistake my dislike of religion as a dislike of religious people, i appreciate that many great things have been done by people of faith, but i believe that without faith they would have achieved greater things!

PS, Harry and Peter are great i'd say that it's a complement to Jesus, not an insult...

 

[benjamin_c]

The country is in Billions of pounds of debt and they're wasting £20'000'000.00 on this http://20million.org/
That could pay for 1000 Police officers or nurses!!!
How stupid!!

 

[cjd]

I almost understood this explanation of Hawking's 'god is required to make a a universe' explanation. Almost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCVqJw7T1WU&feature=player_embedded

 

As a business model religion gets 110%.

Vast wealth provided by people who are scared that if they do not give they will end up in hell.

Brilliant beats Heroin hands down.

Any one like to name a poor religion.?:|

Earl

 

[bdw]

Besides that, God had purposed that Jesus' death would provide the perfect human sacrifice needed to ransom Adam's offspring, and thus make it possible for billions who would exercise faith to live forever in a paradise earth, in fulfillment of Jehovah's original purpose and in expression of his great love for mankind. I would not say that was laughable, in fact it was very loving on God & Jesus, to have provided that ransom sacrifice, which we should really appreciate from the bottom of our hearts, don't you think?

No, I don't think so, actually I think that if your god was as clever as you say he should have been able to come up with a more humanitarian way of doing this. Don't you?

The "miracle" of religion to me is that people can seriously come up with what is totally illogical and inexplicable and use it to [what they see as] back up their lack of any truth or evidence.

 

[cjd]

This is quite thoughtful - I like Mary Warnock; she's a sensible lass.

Thursday's headline in the Times, "Hawking: God did not create the Universe", reached new depths of absurdity. It provoked an immediate outbreak of hostilities between atheists and believers, raising again the question of the status of religion in an age of scientific advance that has been accelerating since the Enlightenment. Hawking appears to believe (and so far I can judge only from the extracts in the Times magazine, Eureka) that he has proved the nonexistence of God. But the trouble with his proof, as with so much religious discussion, is that he takes the name "God" to be used to refer to an object that exists (or does not exist) in the world as other natural objects exist.

And most people who are religious believers fall into the same confusion. They assume that God the Creator is a being, albeit supernatural, to whom can be ascribed other praiseworthy attributes, who can be identified with God the Loving Father, or God the Founder of all Morality, who literally, at one and the same time laid down both natural laws and moral principles.

It would be as well if people could take time off from the battle to read Section XI of David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. It isn't very long. But it contains the argument that even if we could infer from the nature of the world that God must have created it (a fashionable form of theology in the 18th century), this would be a useless inference, since we would have no grounds for ascribing any other characteristics to this creator. All the characteristics usually attributed to the deity – that he is morally perfect, that he loves his creatures, that his human creations are images of himself – all these are quite gratuitous additions to the inferred creative function. We would be landed with a God about whom nothing could be said except that he made the world.

The antagonists in the present engagement might prefer to read Kant, who denied that God's existence could be either proved or disproved, but held that all our language about God must be metaphorical. To think otherwise, he wrote, would be grossly anthropomorphic. Whence could we get the idea of perfect goodness or infinite forgiveness except from our knowledge of human goodness and human forgiveness?

The great monotheistic religions are powerful works of the human imagination that have woven themselves deeply into our culture. To some people, their imagery still appeals most strongly; their narratives convey truths and insights not elsewhere available. To others, they no longer have any but historical significance. The mischief done to science and religion by the current battle lies in the belief that all truth must be literal truth. One thing is certain. Just as, if Hawking is right, we do not need the idea of God to teach us the origin of the universes around us, so we do not need the idea of God to teach us what is good and what is bad. We can learn this from society itself, not from tablets of stone handed down from Mount Sinai.

Whatever the continuing role of religion today, in philanthropy, in education, in ceremonial, in music, in personal comfort and hope, there is no obligation to believe. We can value things without God to tell us what is valuable. We know, without faith, that love is better than war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/05/hawking-atheism-religion-mary-warnock

 

[bdw]

We can value things without God to tell us what is valuable. We know, without faith, that love is better than war.

A wonderfully succint maxim in my opinion. How can anyone possibly dispute that?

 

[benjamin_c]

It's nice to see some sensable folk on the forum today

 

[DCE]

No, I don't think so, actually I think that if your god was as clever as you say he should have been able to come up with a more humanitarian way of doing this. Don't you?

The only two perfect men to have walked the earth was the first man Adam & Jesus.

The first Adam's sin resulted in the condemnation to death of the whole human family.

The sacrifice of Jesus provides the basis for deliverance from sin and death, so that we can live forever here on earth, which is what God's Heavenly Kingdom is going to bring about.

(John 3:16-17) 16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him.

Jesus was the only one that could buy back what Adam had lost.

Should we ignore such a loving provision and dismiss it's purpose?

Would that be sensible?

 

[bdw]

The only two perfect men to have walked the earth was the first man Adam & Jesus.

There was no Adam. Most learned clerics will readily admit that the old testament was a fable used to illustrate a fictitious creation. Adam was not true, Eve was not true, there was no apple, rib, Noah, arc or any of that stuff.

Jesus was the only one that could buy back what Adam had lost. Should we ignore such a loving provision and dismiss it's purpose? Would that be sensible?

Where are you getting this?
(Furtively looks round to see if anyone is laughing or is this really serious?)

Do you honestly think that the human race is incapable of living good lives without your form of christianity? What about China? How did they manage to have such an advanced civilisation before we did without christianity? What about all of the other societies who survived without it until you guys forced it on them?

Incidentally I respect your right to follow your religion but I feel justified in tearing your old testament nonsense to bits. I am sorry but I just cannot believe that any reasonable person would believe any of this.

 

[DCE]

There was no Adam. Most learned clerics will readily admit that the old testament was a fable used to illustrate a fictitious creation. Adam was not true, Eve was not true, there was no apple, rib, Noah, arc or any of that stuff.


Where are you getting this?
(Furtively looks round to see if anyone is laughing or is this really serious?)

Do you honestly think that the human race is incapable of living good lives without your form of christianity? What about China? How did they manage to have such an advanced civilisation before we did without christianity? What about all of the other societies who survived without it until you guys forced it on them?

Incidentally I respect your right to follow your religion but I feel justified in tearing your old testament nonsense to bits. I am sorry but I just cannot believe that any reasonable person would believe any of this.

What has this world got to offer which you support?

Decay of honesty, lack of integrity, religious hypocrisy, collapse of the family, divorce on any whim, neglected children, no natural affection, selfishness, rudeness, me-ism, sick sexual perversions, revolting child molesting, spreading violence, increasing lawlessness, international terrorism, on and on the listing could go of things for which this world has no answers.

How do humanists see the future.

 

[Subbynet]

What has this world got to offer which you support?

Decay of honesty, lack of integrity, religious hypocrisy, collapse of the family, divorce on any whim, neglected children, no natural affection, selfishness, rudeness, me-ism, sick sexual perversions, revolting child molesting, spreading violence, increasing lawlessness, international terrorism, on and on the listing could go of things for which this world has no answers.

How do humanists see the future.

If you see it happens, then you try explain it?

You can't. You know this stuff happens, but in your little world you blank it all out - God can do no wrong. This is the world you think God created, not the Adam and Eve story you wish it was...

 

[DCE]

If you see it happens, then you try explain it?

You can't. You know this stuff happens, but in your little world you blank it all out - God can do no wrong. This is the world you think God created, not the Adam and Eve story you wish it was...

Subbynet if you have read the Bible you would recall this taking place.

Jesus went into the wilderness, where he was tempted by Satan the Devil.

Part of that tempting took the form of three proposals made by the Devil to Jesus.

The third of these is described in this way:

"Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to him: 'All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.'"-Matt. 4:8, 9.

What did the Devil offer Christ?

It was "all the kingdoms of the world." Were all the world governments really the Devil's property?

Yes, for how else could he have offered them to Christ?

Satan was the invisible ruler of them.

For that reason Jesus later said: "My kingdom is no part of this world."-John 18:36.

The Bible clearly explains that all the nations are under the Devil's control, saying: "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." (1 John 5:19) God's Word, in fact, calls Satan "the god of this system of things."-2 Cor. 4:4.

This information helps us to understand why it is that nations hate and try to destroy one another when it is the natural desire of all normal persons to live at peace.

Yes, "Satan is misleading the entire inhabited earth."-Rev. 12:9; Eph. 6:12. Shortly, however, all of this will change.

The time is near at hand when the resurrected Jesus Christ in his Kingdom power, will bring to their end Satan and his wicked world, while preserving God's servants alive forever on earth. Rev. 20:1-3; 1 John 2:17.

God is still going to bring about his original purpose for the earth, which will be transformed in to a paradise at his own appointed time.

Will you be part of that new arrangement?

 

[dagr]

...

Decay of honesty, lack of integrity, religious hypocrisy, collapse of the family, divorce on any whim, neglected children, no natural affection, selfishness, rudeness, me-ism, sick sexual perversions, revolting child molesting, spreading violence, increasing lawlessness, international terrorism, on and on the listing could go of things for which this world has no answers.

Please, don't drag politicians into the debate. It's bad enough just tackling religion.

What has this world got to offer which you support?
How do humanists see the future.

Mankind's future depends on mankind. That's it. The sooner everyone realises this, the quicker we can move on, to brighter and better things. I can fully understand the lack of attraction in this, the fact there is "nothing" on offer from the outside, natural or supernatural, but the sooner we realise it's all down to self belief and self determination, the clearer things will become.

All those nasty things you evoke above have always been here, with or without religion. Religion is just a diversion that keeps us from this bare truth.

Personally, I don't think mankind will ever sufficiently throw off religion, at least not for a very long time. Humans are spiritual beings, and atheism ain't got much to offer when you are a spiritualist.

 

[bdw]

Decay of honesty, lack of integrity, religious hypocrisy, collapse of the family, divorce on any whim, neglected children, no natural affection, selfishness, rudeness, me-ism, sick sexual perversions, revolting child molesting, spreading violence, increasing lawlessness, international terrorism, on and on the listing could go of things for which this world has no answers.

The emphasis is on stuff that many of us could actually attribute to religion.

Personally, I don't think mankind will ever sufficiently throw off religion, at least not for a very long time. Humans are spiritual beings, and atheism ain't got much to offer when you are a spiritualist.

Actually I think the statistics would suggest otherwise. Some of the best pubs and small theatres in my neck of the woods have been created from churches that have closed down and there are many more about to follow. It is estimated that as many as two in three of us no longer believe in any god. Religion has had its day. It is on the way out because people are more capable of thinking for themselves and less scared of admitting to atheism and the stigmas that the church attached to it.

Thankfully many Britons are learning to live without religion and to be open about their lack of real belief in ANY deity.

 

What has this world got to offer

Decay of honesty, lack of integrity, religious hypocrisy, collapse of the family, divorce on any whim, neglected children, no natural affection, selfishness, rudeness, me-ism, sick sexual perversions, revolting child molesting, spreading violence, increasing lawlessness, international terrorism.

Yep its strange how religion brings out the best in people.:|

Earl