PDA

View Full Version : "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."


Pages : [1] 2

You Sir, Name!
21st Oct 2008, 22:44
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45128000/jpg/_45128101_6743594c-2984-4a81-a282-098c8c001fae.jpg
Bendy-buses with the slogan "There's probably no God" could soon be running on the streets of London.
The atheist posters are the idea of the British Humanist Association (BHA) and have been supported by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins.BBC NEWS | England | London | 'No God' slogans for city's buses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm)

Details of the campaign here:
Atheist Campaign (http://www.atheistcampaign.org/)

charliegolf
21st Oct 2008, 22:49
There's probably no God

Are you sure?:ok:

CG

GrumpyOldFart
21st Oct 2008, 22:54
Are you sure?



Oh Jeeze, yes!

dead_pan
21st Oct 2008, 23:10
Nice uplifting message in these times of great uncertainty - why not go the whole hog with something like "You're All Going to DIE!!!!!"

Can't argue with the sentiment though - to quote the late, great Douglas Adams "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"



PS Did you hear the one about the agnostic, insomniac, dyslexic - he would lie awake at night wondering if there was a dog

A View of the River
21st Oct 2008, 23:18
I'm afraid I find Fundamentalist Atheists as obnoxious as Fundy Christians, Muslims, etc., etc.

Come now, who gives a :mad:, what you do or don't believe, don't rub it in my face.

SpringHeeledJack
21st Oct 2008, 23:24
A spiritual connection is a wonderful thing and it can bring many benefits, but the simple gesture of being kind to one's fellow man seems to be often too much for many affiliated persons.

Better a friendly atheist, than an unfriendly religion follower :ok:


regards


SHJ

Davaar
21st Oct 2008, 23:34
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"


A garden is a lovesome thing, God wot!
Rose plot! Fringed pool! Ferned grot!
The veriest school of peace.
And yet the fool contends that God is not!
Not God!
In Gardens?
When the eve is cool?
Nay, I have a sign,
'Tis very sure God walks in mine.

T E Brown.

corsair
21st Oct 2008, 23:41
Why 'probably'. If you are an atheist, then there is no God. No probably about it.

I don't believe in God but I'm no atheist. Why would you want to be part of a group dedicated to not believing in something that doesn't exist.:ugh:
I'm quite happy to enjoy all the religious people out there dedicating themselves to a makey up supernatural being who despite all their best efforts, resolutely refuses to answer their prayers. Largely because it doesn't exist at all.

It is true that religion is given a relatively easy ride, with some of it's worst excesses tolerated. But it's a fact of life. Many people need to make sense of their pointless lives by inventing an afterlife of flower gardens and virgins.

I was brought up with God, But we drifted apart, it wasn't working. I would ask for something, he ignored me. I would do bad things, he ignored them. I worry about my evil thoughts and what he would think. But he cared less. I would blame him for all the bad things that happened to me. But he had no conscience and kept letting them happen.

Actually in truth, I don't think I ever really believed in God. Once you finally realise the reality. It's quite interesting really. A huge invented superstition. Masses (geddit) of books on the subject. But no evidence, not a scintilla, not even the tiniest of tiny, tiny bit of tiny evidence. Santa Claus is more credible, fairies are almost plausible, aliens nearly seem real. (Leprechauns do exist though. Everyone knows that). But Gods are non existent, invented by primitive people to try and explain their primitive existence. But since maintained by complex civilisations in order to control their populations of primitives.

But it is a tribute to our relative sophistication that we can write some much interesting literature on a fictional subject and make it seem so real.

Anyway, the bus thing is just an expensive poke at religion at the expence of the humanists. If they were really humanist they would give the money to some humans to make their lives better.

tony draper
21st Oct 2008, 23:42
Yer,you can sit on the bus and worry about being blown up by some chaps who do believe in God instead.
:)

Lancelot37
21st Oct 2008, 23:45
>>A spiritual connection is a wonderful thing<<

Agree, I'll have another double whisky. As for religion - rubbish.

kevmusic
21st Oct 2008, 23:49
resolutely refuses to answer their prayers

That simply is not true.

But as much as there's the unshakeable faith of the true believer, there's the equally resolute stance of the commited atheist. All depends on your mindset, I suppose.......

Rightbase
21st Oct 2008, 23:52
I believe in God, but she's a rubbish gardner.

Loose rivets
22nd Oct 2008, 06:17
I have a tough time believing in the reality presented to us. Atoms that consist of a cloud of electrons - that can be in more than one place. And now on telly tonight, a repeat of that professor that suggested multiple universes.


All of this is far harder to believe in than a designer. The chance creation of 60 Trillion cells that happen to work together to form a thinking mobile being...I always have a tough time with that one. We now know that DNA is far and away too removed from organizing those proteins to give them credit alone for our structure. I wonder if there is not an interaction with the fabric of the Universe that would account for the reading of DNA being turned into organized lifeforms


Now that we know that these cells have a ( 7nm ) membrane, and find that this whisp of matter has what in electronic terms, could be called gates, all about it's area, then I again find this tougher to believe in than a designer.

Who made the designer? Such questions just don't make any sense viewed from the eyes of us very simple entities. (That sounds familiar) We couldn't comprehend the complexity of such an intelligence, so how could we even form a question about its creation.


No intervention? I like to think there is not. That would have to be the prime directive. Anything that gave the game away would negate the experiment/test/training that's going on.

Never the less, given what I've got up to sometimes, there have been times that I've wondered. I really don't deserve to be here still.;)

merlinxx
22nd Oct 2008, 07:26
You've met mine then:E

ORAC
22nd Oct 2008, 07:29
Nice uplifting message in these times of great uncertainty - why not go the whole hog with something like "You're All Going to DIE!!!!!" Relax, enjoy. Life is just a game, and none of us get out of it alive.... :)

13thDuke
22nd Oct 2008, 07:39
I'm afraid I find Fundamentalist Atheists as obnoxious as Fundy Christians, Muslims, etc., etc.


As Mr Draper pointed out "Fundamentalist" atheists are not likely to blow the top of your bus off are they?

Since when was rationality fundamentalist? I notice that you're from Canada. I've never seen it, but I fundamentally believe it exists. Hardly makes me an extremist does it?

arcniz
22nd Oct 2008, 08:14
River view says:

I'm afraid I find Fundamentalist Atheists as obnoxious as Fundy Christians, Muslims, etc., etc.

Come now, who gives a , what you do or don't believe, don't rub it in my face.

and much more eloquently:

Loose rivets says: I have a tough time believing in the reality presented to us. Atoms that consist of a cloud of electrons - that can be in more than one place. And now on telly tonight, a repeat of that professor that suggested multiple universes.

I am not an atheist, but an omnitheist -- I believe a little bit of everything, but prefer to rely, when things get down to the short strokes, on a logic of existence and action that is tied as closely as possible to observable Cause and Effect.

Science, while often somewhat wrong, comes far closer to the cause-effect standard than any sort of theology. On the other hand, theologies, while always definitively and often exuberantly wrong, make one feel much better about the unstoppable workings of cause-effect than do the unsympathetic arcaneries of science.

One must wonder greatly about people in positions of power who profess to be firm believers in some religious subscription, and who then yet claim to be able to make rational decisions about matters of cause and effect, such as apply to economics, physics, medicine, engineering, etc. Does one want to be endlessly driving on bridges that are designed by folks whose primary engineering concept is that "Dog will provide". One suspects that another inch of steel thickness or another thousand tons of concrete might "provide" better than holy beneficence of any sort when the going gets tough.

All people are fools. We are just silly animals that are easily confused by tasty foods, thin air, flashing lights, electric shocks, chemicals of many sorts, etcetera. The Gods work well for this. The rationale of their existence and proactivity provides Magic results for gullible creatures desperate to find substitutions for their own vast critterly gaps and chasms of understanding in regard to even the simplest matters involving cause and effect.

On the other hand, objects, be they clumps of energy in cold space or bricks on the dinner table, do not have the 'capacity' to believe. They simply are and simply do in accord with some principles that we have partly written down. One might assert that in the world of things, the principles of cause and effect apply normally and easily -- and we may name them collectively as "Thingism". Physics, Chemistry, Mechanics, Logic, Mathematics, and certain other labeled concept groups may be seen as the pillars of Thingism.

Taking a similar dialectic with facets of religious belief, one quickly sees that predominant Western religions apply solely to human beings, and only to certain tribes and selections of them. Animals are not included, nor plants nor rocks nor waves nor waters or clouds, etc. Clearly what folks revere as "religion" is mostly a rather greedy and incestuous anthropocentric narcissism, a theory with few details and lots of fuzzy 'beliefs' that may be adjusted by anyone at anytime to suit the needs of the moment. I tremble to think that people who are guided by such nonsense are in charge of anything that involves cause and effect, because their reliance on 'belief' as the supreme resolution of conflicts and questions - even ones regarding objects and objective results, guarantees a high frequency of failure in achieving the intended outcomes.

Gnirren
22nd Oct 2008, 11:48
People "knew" the earth was flat. They also "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth.

The problem is the belief system that discourages you to look for evidence. With a "the earth is flat" mindset where you have decided a certain thing is correct and refuse to ever challenge that position, or to listen to someone with a different viewpoint you have locked yourself in. What if we had all maintained a collective mindset that worked like this? What if nobody had challenged anything but simply resigned to "knowing" that if something is the way it is then it's because God made it that way.

But I tell you what. When the preacher's son gets cancer he won't be running up to the church with that boy to light some candles and pray that the lord spare him. No he'll be in the hospital receiving the benefit of modern science, and cancer treatments that where discovered and improved upon by men and women to whom the answer "it must be the will of God" wasn't good enough.

How about we introduce prayer rooms in hospitals where the religious can enjoy prayer for their ailments? Don't bother with the emergency ward christian friend, there's the altar, here's the bible. Off you go to pray that the lord (who loves you without limit) will stop the blood from gushing out of you. If he doesn't well then clearly your death is God's will, and part of his divine plan. Are you going to defy God's will?

Me, I'll go with the doctor who can stitch me up but to each his own eh.

13thDuke
22nd Oct 2008, 12:12
When the preacher's son gets cancer he won't be running up to the church with that boy to light some candles and pray that the lord spare him. No he'll be in the hospital receiving the benefit of modern science
Unless he's a Jehovah's Witness of course, in which case he'll demand the 'right' to let his son die to glorify his God of Love.

When these people are treated as the loonies they are, then I'll give up my 'Fundamentalist' antitheism. :E

Miserlou
22nd Oct 2008, 12:48
The "probably" comes in because atheists are not fundamentalists. They are reasonable and rational people who accept the possibility of the existence of a god.
It's just that all evidence points to the non-existence.

I keep pressing my wife, who is a teacher at a very multi-cultural school, to remind the children that they don't have to belong to any religion at all! The teaching seems to be about comparable religion but lacks the 'no religion' possibility.

By the way, does anyone have a link and lyrics to the Spitting Images song 'Our God's better than your God'?

simon brown
22nd Oct 2008, 12:57
It should be " As this Bus has overpriced fares and never on time there definitely isnt a God"

rojread
22nd Oct 2008, 13:13
.......makes a nice change from all those folk who are demanding that we tolerate their intolerance!

Blacksheep
22nd Oct 2008, 13:19
The problem is the belief system that discourages you to look for evidenceThere is in this book that which is plain for all to see and that which is hidden. Do not ponder on that which is hidden. Seek knowledge to unveil the truth.



This, from the religion professed by those who kill in God's name. :confused:

VH-MLE
22nd Oct 2008, 14:10
I think corsair got it in one. I foolishly believed in the power of prayer but was badly let down on several occasions so now am 100% finished with religion.

If there is such a being as a God, he is neither kind nor merciful in my opinion - at least not down here anyway and I'm highly unlikely to experience the "up there" after that last statement.

VH-MLE

Jetex Jim
22nd Oct 2008, 14:12
By the way, does anyone have a link and lyrics to the Spitting Images song 'Our God's better than your God'?
Try this

YouTube - Spitting Image - My God (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=b36wqBPx9WM)

dead_pan
22nd Oct 2008, 16:09
They are reasonable and rational people who accept the possibility of the existence of a god.

err, like Richard Dawkins? He's pure mental, to misquote someone recently.

Personally I think John Humphries (BBC radio broadcaster) was on the money in his recent book when he discussed religion. His view was that science would probably never offer proof of the existence of God, nor could it explain what effect religion had on some people.

Although I'm a devout and committed atheist, I have a strong interest in religion and believe it does serve a purpose in society. My only real beef with religion is the notion of deferring or accepting one's present life in the belief that things will be all fine and dandy in the next. I personally beleive that such 'closures of the mind' are the route cause of many of the problems in regions such as the Middle East.

smo-kin-hole
22nd Oct 2008, 17:05
Humans can't even explain gravity. How can anyone really think they can
prove or disprove God? Believe what you want, but improving the lot of life on this planet is what religion should be doing.

Have a nice day!

obgraham
22nd Oct 2008, 18:07
Can anyone explain precisely what is accomplished by putting the sign on the bus?

Miserlou
22nd Oct 2008, 19:03
Thanks Jetex. I only had half the song. I had searched for 'Spitting Images Our God' on Youtube and not found it. Perhaps there were too many results that I never got down to it.

I think the point of the campaign is to encourage people to stop worrying about what happens in the 'next' world and get on with making this one a better place.
Which means not tolerating intolerance or, for that matter, tolerance.

I find Mr Dawkins a very reasonable chap; Christopher Hitchins slightly less so.
Whilst most people accept that it's OK to hold religious beliefs in the privacy of their own minds, one should be aware that this attitude creates a safe haven for the fundamentalists.
Dawkins provokes people to think. That so few do says more about them than him.

As I mentioned earlier, there is emphasis in school teaching about 'which' religion one belongs to. I keep asking my wife (teacher), "Has anyone told the pupils that they don't have to choose?"

Miserlou
22nd Oct 2008, 19:17
"Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large
Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice

"I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti.

"People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it."

Sorry, Mr Green. I don't see the link between atheism and bendy busses being a danger to the public.
Neither do I see the link to graffiti.
Did it escape Mr Green that the word preacher has a slightly religious connotation or that the campagn is as a change to the more normal "Let Jesus save you" type posters?

I'm obviously not cut out to be a religious follower.

Lost man standing
22nd Oct 2008, 19:38
Loose Rivets

Your lack of imagination and knowledge is not a good basis for disbelief in science for which there is a lot of good evidence. You have no idea about the ideas you are trying to challenge.The chance creation of 60 Trillion cells that happen to work together to form a thinking mobile beingNo-one ever suggested that. The whole point of the theory of evolution is that chance is no longer important.We now know that DNA is far and away too removed from organizing those proteins to give them credit alone for our structureYes, and we know the origin of the rest. It is the environment in which the DNA acts, and the cells develop. Again, just because you don't know the science doesn't mean that the science is not well-known. It just means that you know less than you think. A lot of religion is based on the arrogant assumption that we should be able to understnad the world, and resort to superstition to explain what we don't understand.Now that we know that these cells have a ( 7nm ) membrane, and find that this whisp of matter has what in electronic terms, could be called gates, all about it's area, then I again find this tougher to believe in than a designer.Again,. you are contemplating your own ignorance, not that of the biologists.Who made the designer? Such questions just don't make any sense viewed from the eyes of us very simple entities.Actually this is a vital question. One of the major reasons people, including you, give for belief is that they cannot understand how the complexities of the universe came about. Unfortunately to resort to deus ex machina, to coin a phrase is no help. Logically any being able to create the universe must be more complex than the universe. Therefore one has only shifted the problem of complexity to another, larger problem of identical nature.

Loose rivets
22nd Oct 2008, 19:54
There are so many differing facets to the main argument here. The pain of disappointment and non-intervention being a very important one.

We don't even know why we stick to the very world we live on. The fact that we don't understand gravity is important, because it spells out all too clearly just how minute our knowledge is.

Dr Dawkings' succinct arguments are unnerving to a believer, they're just too well presented to be dismissed easily. Yet, is he thinking laterally? Without a totally open mind, we will never gain the knowledge we need to go to the next stage of evolution. It might be, that we will not be allowed the slightest testable hint of a creator until we have reached a given plateau of wisdom. Maybe not even then, because as I say, certain knowledge of a creator would negate the mystery needed to test us properly.

What is perhaps the most difficult thing to grasp, is how little we suffer on this Earth. That's right, how little.

When you consider just how minute the speck of time is that we take a mortal form, and how we always have an escape route from this existence...then consider the opiates that flood our brains when we are viciously brutalized. There are huge constraints on our potential suffering.

When Keef kindly sent me the links to three of the most widely accepted 'explanations' of the Atonement, none of them satisfied my contemporary thinking. I wondered just what could be the explanation of a man's willingness to stay to be brutalized to such horrific levels. What could be the logic of such a story, real or not. Perhaps, just perhaps, only while in mortal form, could a creator gauge the level to set our maximum pain. Pain, just a series of signals to the brain, unless they have a conduit to a soul. (Sic) (Descartes)

Whichever way you look at it, One can find a solid scientific argument that allows a creator. These arguments are every bit as good as Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker and other works he puts forward for Atheism. Little by little, one molecule at a time, chance builds a human being. We can't perceive billions easily, but for most of the evolutionary time available, the modest life-forms were not going anywhere. Everything important happened in the last small percentage of Earth's existence.


All we need as individuals right now is an open mind. It's our call, nobody is going to haul us off to jail for not believing, but what is not acceptable, is to use a woefully incomplete knowledge of science, to pronounce God dead.

BDiONU
22nd Oct 2008, 20:01
but what is not acceptable, is to use a woefully incomplete knowledge of science, to pronounce God dead.
Some proof, even a teeny tiny speck might just help to bring 'god' to life. As things stand there is nothing (including gravity) in the universe which requires to be explained by the intervention of supernatural beings. Oh and in case you missed it the wording on the bus is "probably".

BD

BLASPHEMING BUSES WILL BURN IN HELL, SAY CHRISTIANS - The Daily Mash (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/blaspheming-buses-will-burn-in-hell%2c-say-christians-200810221343/)

Loose rivets
22nd Oct 2008, 20:11
Hello BD, a bit late on parade old chap.


One will return in the cool of the Texas night, 85f, to put forward a more structured image of 'my' concept of space-time, and why it could so easily have carried information from outside the universe.

Miserlou
22nd Oct 2008, 20:19
"...what is not acceptable, is to use a woefully incomplete knowledge of science, to pronounce God dead."

Actually, our incomplete knowledge of science provides a far better explanation than does any religious attempt.
And wouldn't a god or creator be more impressed by our attempt at understanding than our failure to do so?

There is no purpose to such a figure anyway. It rids us of a problem by creating a bigger one; who created the creator?

Loose rivets
22nd Oct 2008, 20:23
Lost, your post popped up while I was writing. I'll give it some thought in the cool of the night.


However, don't jump to the conclusion that I have an unquestioning faith in a creator...I wish I did. But like a lot of people, I'm searching for a logic that makes sense, even if it's unprovable.

As mentioned on another thread, my knowledge of cell structure extends only to Bruce H Lipton, (who while qualified, gets a tad esoteric towards the end of his popular book) And Dr Debra Niehoff, who I'm finding rather difficult to read...not understand, but to read. I just don't take to her teaching techniques if you like.

As for gravity, 45 years of trying to see past other people's work and see the truth, has made the 'g word' forbidden in my household.

BlooMoo
22nd Oct 2008, 20:45
don't jump to the conclusion that I have an unquestioning faith in a creator...I wish I did

Why? Oh...

But like a lot of people, I'm searching for a logic that makes sense, even if it's unprovable.

As God is my witness, I truly believe your search is over Rivets.

Check it out (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/347933-theres-probably-no-god-now-stop-worrying-enjoy-your-life.html#post4475606)

Beatriz Fontana
22nd Oct 2008, 21:39
Those atheists, so patriarch-monothesic! Not a mention of multiple Gods or, indeed, Godesses...

Long live Paganism!

Rightbase
22nd Oct 2008, 22:04
God started it all.

The scientists are slowly figuring it out.

The devil invented religion as a 'divide and conquer' strategem.

What's the problem?

TURIN
22nd Oct 2008, 22:09
Without a totally open mind, we will never gain the knowledge we need to go to the next stage of evolution.

Erm, from my very sketchy understanding of Darwin.

We have no control over the direction of our evolution. Life evolves through tiny, random mutations of cells. Some of these mutations create a more successfull organism that is capable of recreating. Some don't.
The next "stage" of evolution is your very own offspring who may or may not be minutely better equipped to cope with their environment, disease, predators, prey, etc.

As for the bendy bus, it did make me laugh and does stop me ranting at every church I pass about this time of year, "Christmas Day is Jesus' Birthday" the posters yell.
"No it bl00dywell isn't.." I yell back in the comfort of my little gas guzzler "The only thing Christian about Christmas is it's name..." wibble, wibble, :\

rodthesod
22nd Oct 2008, 22:25
Much plagiarised graffiti:

"God is Dead" - signed, Nietzche.
Written below it,
"Nietzche is Dead" - signed, God.

BlooMoo
22nd Oct 2008, 23:06
But like a lot of people, I'm searching for a logic that makes sense, even if it's unprovable.

There is, in all reasonable likelihood, NO GOD - QED. Search over Rivets.


has made the 'g word' forbidden in my household
Same here - 'gullibility in others is a readily exploitable asset' - is exactly the message I beat into my kidz.

henry crun
22nd Oct 2008, 23:20
Religions are born and may die, but superstition is immortal. W.Durant

bucket_and_spade
23rd Oct 2008, 00:58
If there's no God and, by extension, no afterlife/continuation, there's absolutely no point in anything. At all.

So the "enjoy yourself" bit is a pointless addition to the slogan - enjoying yourself or not enjoying yourself is irrelevant. If someone truly believes there is nothing after death then I can't understand how they could even justify getting up in the morning - may as well just jump in front of a train!

Surely?

Flintstone
23rd Oct 2008, 01:17
Au contraire bucket and spade.

There's no afterlife so enjoy yourself while you can.

West Coast
23rd Oct 2008, 04:40
Science can't eliminate the common cold yet they put their faith (sorry) in a scientific flawed thought process that says an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. How many things then can science then say doesn't exist because they cant hold it in their hands or see it under the microscope?

How many scientists thought the world flat at one time?

As for me, I dunno for sure but am leading towards their being one.

BDiONU
23rd Oct 2008, 06:31
If there's no God and, by extension, no afterlife/continuation, there's absolutely no point in anything. At all.

So the "enjoy yourself" bit is a pointless addition to the slogan - enjoying yourself or not enjoying yourself is irrelevant. If someone truly believes there is nothing after death then I can't understand how they could even justify getting up in the morning - may as well just jump in front of a train!

Surely?
Huh? The point of life is to live it, not wait until you die to 'enjoy' yourself. If your belief is that there is a marvellous fantastic life after this vale of tears then you might as well kill yourself and get there quicker. For myself I believe that when you're dead you're dead (and we Scots have a saying "You're a long time dead") so live life to the full now! :ok:

BD

BDiONU
23rd Oct 2008, 06:44
Science can't eliminate the common cold yet they put their faith (sorry) in a scientific flawed thought process that says an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Common cold is a virus not a germ. Viruses exploit that most evil and heinous thing common to all living things, they mutate and evolve (eeekkk! I've said the E word!) which makes it impossible to cure because its constantly changing.

The scientific process requires facts, proof and another word which is generally anathema to those afflicted with religion, evidence. There is absolutely no evidence for a supernatural creator being overseeing each and every one of us, judging our actions and listening to everything we say. Thus it isn't possible for science to say that a god or supreme creator being doesn't exist and the bus poster makes that point with the word "probably".

One thing to note, like a court of law (IMHO), if you make a claim for something then the burden of proof is on the claimant. So those afflicted with religion are the ones who need to prove that their creator exists, if they can be bothered because it would appear that religous beliefs are very much a personal belief and we can believe whatever we wish to. I believed in santa claus until I was about 8 years old. Its not up to science to prove that such a being doesn't exist, particularly as science has yet to uncover anything requiring a supernatural explanation.

BD

Miserlou
23rd Oct 2008, 07:55
The non-existence of a god does not actually exclude the possibility of the continuance of consciousness after death; that is a completely different discussion.
Raymond Moody and Ian Stevenson have much evidence to support it.

I see no reason to live any differently either way.
It's a win/win for me!

Jetex Jim
23rd Oct 2008, 08:09
Kenneth Miller has written a book, "Finding Darwins God", which acknowledges the scientific truth of evolution, and still finds room within a scientists view of the universe for God. If it's any qualification, Richard Dawkin speaks highly of it.

To cover Miller's point very quickly. He suggests that within the indeterminancy of quantum physics there is room for a God to influence the universe, while still leaving scope for humans to have free will.

Miller maintains that, above the quantum level, a consistent set of physical laws AND God can co-exist.

Review of Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" :: Michael Ruse :: Global Spiral (http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/3079/Default.aspx)

West Coast
23rd Oct 2008, 08:24
if you make a claim for something then the burden of proof is on the claimant

Remind me again just who is placing the ads on the bus? Then again they hedged their bet didn't they?


There is absolutely no evidence for a supernatural creator

Your burden of proof perhaps, not mine. Mention pre-big bang and scientists shrug thier shoulders. Out of nothing comes infinity. Said however minus any empirical data to conclusively prove it. Given that, my claim is at least as valid.

Common cold is a virus not a germ

Science has created, harnessed for its own needs along with largely eliminating viruses in the past. It's created living things (research oil spill containment) so perhaps the common cold is just isn't sexy enough to work on.


The scientific process requires facts, proof

No, incorrect, theory and observation alone at times has been the basis for many a scientific process. Prior to Copernicus, the generally accepted belief among the best and the brightest minds in science was that the earth was flat. Along comes Copernicus with his theorem (minus the absolute burden you mention above)which based on his simple observations, threw established theory out on its ear. Science often operates on a preponderance of evidence, provide just a little more than the last guys theory and you're in.

There is absolutely no evidence for a supernatural creator being overseeing each and every one of us, judging our actions and listening to everything we say

You're now imposing your version of what of what a supernatural creator is and how it's defined.
A traditional Judeo-Christian view might differ from someone who subscribes Buddhism while intelligent design may view things far different than either of them, yet they're lumped together by your one size fits all approach.


It's late, I'm going to say my prayers and go to bed.

wobs
23rd Oct 2008, 08:41
Dumb All Over - Frank Zappa

-Lyrics-
Whoever we are
Wherever we're from
We shoulda noticed by now
Our behavior is dumb
And if our chances
Expect to improve
It's gonna take a lot more
Than tryin' to remove
The other race
Or the other whatever
From the face
Of the planet altogether

They call it THE EARTH
Which is a dumb kinda name
But they named it right
'Cause we behave the same...
*We are dumb all over*
Dumb all over,
Yes we are
Dumb all over,
Near 'n far
Dumb all over,
Black 'n white
People, we is not wrapped tight

Nurds on the left
Nurds on the right
Religous fanatics
On the air every night
Sayin' the Bible
Tells the story
Makes the details
Sound real gory
'Bout what to do
If the geeks over there
Don't believe in the book
We got over here

You can't run a race
Without no feet
'N pretty soon
There won't be no street
For dummies to jog on
Or doggies to dog on
Religous fanatics
Can make it be all gone
(I mean it won't blow up
'N disappear
It'll just look ugly
For a thousand years...)

You can't run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state

TO ARMS! TO ARMS!
Hooray! That's great
Two legs ain't bad
Unless there's a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears *(Get Down!)*
Not his, not hers, *(but what the hey?)*
The Good Book says:
*("It gotta be that way!")*
But their book says:
*"REVENGE THE CRUSADES...
With whips 'n chains
'N hand grenades..."*
TWO ARMS? TWO ARMS?
Have another and another
Our God says:
*"There ain't no other!"*
Our God says
*"It's all okay!"*
Our God says
*"This is the way!"*

It says in the book:
*"Burn 'n destroy...*
*'N repent, 'n redeem*
*'N revenge, 'n deploy*
*'N rumble thee forth*
*To the land of the unbelieving scum on
the other side*
*'Cause they don't go for what's in the
book*
*'N that makes 'em BAD*
*So verily we must choppeth them up*
*And stompeth them down*
*Or rent a nice French bomb*
*To poof them out of existance
*While leaving their real estate just where
we need it*
*To use again*
*For temples in which to praise
OUR GOD*
*("Cause he can really take care of
business!")*

And when his humble TV servant
With humble white hair
And humble glasses
And a nice brown suit
And maybe a blond wife who takes
phone calls
Tells us our God says
It's okay to do this stuff
Then we gotta do it,
'Cause if we don't do it,
We ain't gwine up to *hebbin!*
(Depending on which book you're using
at the time...Can't use theirs... it don't work
...it's all lies...Gotta use mine...)
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night...
Every day...
Hey, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following *God's Orders*
Hey, let's get serious...
God knows what he's doin'
He wrote this book here
An' the book says:
*He made us all to be just like Him,"
so...
If we're dumb...
Then God is dumb...
*(An' maybe even a little ugly on the side)*

under_exposed
23rd Oct 2008, 08:57
As there is no evidence for God, how did we decide he existed?
We must have guessed. What are the chances we guessed right?
It could just as well be the teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) or the Flying_spagetti_monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spagetti_monster)

13thDuke
23rd Oct 2008, 09:14
Don't be silly.

It was the Beast of Craggy Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_Craggy_Island)

TURIN
23rd Oct 2008, 11:58
To quote Douglas Adams....again. :O

Oolon Coluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters: Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who is This God Person Anyway?

In it he states...

...if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.
But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could'nt have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, therefore, you don't. QED.
Oh dear, says God, I hadn't thought of that, and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Oh, that was easy, says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Well, that about wraps it up for atheists, it would seem." :E



Made me laugh in 1978 and still does. :ok:

Blacksheep
23rd Oct 2008, 12:06
Mention pre-big bang Until the Big Bang there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not even an empty void for the universe to expand into. It is contemplation of such enormities that leads men towards religion. Or at least it leads them into philosophy which is much the same thing.


...and while we're at it, where does it say that God is a being?

West Coast
23rd Oct 2008, 17:38
Yup, exactly. Out of nothing came everything. Problematic at best for science as that itself violates God only knows how many scientific laws.

If and when they get that hoopti up and running in Switzerland...

Loose rivets
23rd Oct 2008, 18:26
After Jetex's link, really, there is little more I say that is not covered and indeed countered in that review. Sounds like a must read.

Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, New York: Cliff Street Books, 1999, 352 pp., $24.00. ISBN 0-06-017593-1



He points out that quantum mechanics does make you wonder about the ultimate nature of the universe and how far we humans might be from grasping it.

I think this is the point. When we look deeply enough, the mysteries increase exponentially. Without any doubt, the quantum mist that we live in could allow any set of possibilities.

Dr Jekyll
23rd Oct 2008, 18:34
Prior to Copernicus, the generally accepted belief among the best and the brightest minds in science was that the earth was flat. Along comes Copernicus with his theorem (minus the absolute burden you mention above)which based on his simple observations, threw established theory out on its ear. Science often operates on a preponderance of evidence, provide just a little more than the last guys theory and you're in.

As a matter of fact, the ancient Greeks managed to deduce the spherical nature of the earth by observation. In any case, the fact that science takes new evidence into consideration and scientists are prepared to modify their opinions in the light of additional evidence is a strength. Not as you appear to imagine, a weakness.

To quote Keynes "When the evidence changes, I change my mind, what do you do?"

BDiONU
23rd Oct 2008, 21:07
http://www.lunch-break.co.uk/images/MotivationLife.gif

tony draper
23rd Oct 2008, 21:25
Indeed so, one is reading of the teachings of Venerable Bede at the mo and he was well aware that the world was spherical and taught it thusly, however he was at a lost for a explanation when one of his smart arse pupils asked him why the folks who lived upside down on the bottom of said sphere did not fall off.
:uhoh:

BlooMoo
23rd Oct 2008, 23:20
Out of nothing came everything. Problematic at best for science as that itself violates God only knows how many scientific laws

This is the logic of the layman.

'The Big Bang' is a purely theoretical event. It is hypothesised because our, so far, best estimate of how the universe behaves as we observe it (how matter is distributed, how hot it is, how it interacts, how it is evolving, etc, etc) is represented in one of a number of ways, by a particular physical theory (General Relativity) that when extrapolated backwards in time (which is also not remotely understood as an independent measure) mathematically leads to a an infinite limit in terms of these and other measures.

This gives rise to a hypothetical point historically of finite distance in terms of now where the universe theoretically had infinite density and temperature. The 'Big Bang' is a label that physicists and cosmologists give to a purely imaginary event that is implied by accepted incomplete theory in itself. Many physicists would regard the hypothetical 'big bang' as a consequence of the breakdown in existing theory, and not just in terms of GR.

Any talk therefore of 'Pre-Big-Bang' relies in itself on 'The Big-Bang' as a matter of fact, whereas it merely represents an area beyond our current understanding, not just because the concepts of infinite density etc are problematic in terms of a physical description (to us) of reality but because the implications of GR at this region of extrapolation conflicts with other theories eg Gravity and the Standard Model to name just a couple. The concept of 'Big Bang' could ultimately turn out to be a complete red herring in terms of our understanding of the evolution of what we see of the universe but current models point to that hypothesis asymptotically and that's the best we've got apart from pure speculation.

Of course, the fact that now we realize how little we understand about the nature of what we see of the universe is like sh!t to a fly for creationists who see the whole issue of scientific fallibility as a back-door to justifying the existence of the 'god' they desperately want to exist - at the same time they will grab with both hands the purely mathematical concept of the 'Big Bang' as a scientific fact that represents an unequivocal scientific observation/explanation for a 'creation event' and will exploit the ignorance of the majority in marketing this as proving that the existence of a creator is logical.

The definition of god has changed because of this as we now have people advocating the concept of the 'infinite' as simply making anything, however implausible, as plausible - eg god is some kind of unknown/undefined energy force in an unimagined universe eg 'Without any doubt, the quantum mist that we live in could allow any set of possibilities'

This is nonsense. We don't even understand how our brains actually produce a state of conciousness or in fact have a clear idea of what that actually is in the 1st place. The fact of us not actually knowing doesn't remotely justify the existence of a god - 'because of god' has down the ages been the stock answer to 'don't know' as that is a simple and digestible concept to the majority and reinforces the (Darwinian?) instinct amongst thinking humans of the emotional need for an ultimate 'purpose' to everything they do, including their existence.


violates God only knows how many scientific laws
That's what I mean by logic of the layman - god being used in place of 'don't know'. It's an instinctive thing I reckon - Darwin again. It would be useful also if the creationists that believe 'god is a blob of unknown stuff that does, well anything because anything is theoretically possible' differentiate themselves from those that believe 'god created the world in 7 days and listens to everyone's mind and loves you and manipulates the universe on the basis of how he judges the quality of your thoughts, and will cast you into the depths of hell if you disagree with him etc etc'. The former is intellectually in kindergarten, the latter is in the loony farm - in my opinion.

Why does there seem to be a need among so many for there to be a higher purpose to one's existence beyond the few score years one exists? That's an item on a wish list in my opinion. I'll settle for giving my kids the best I can and trying to enjoy my brief time. They're not mutually exclusive aspirations.

priapism
23rd Oct 2008, 23:37
It's been posted before , but sums my thought up brilliantly.

The great George Carlin- RIP YouTube - George Carlin - Religion is bullshit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o)

sisemen
24th Oct 2008, 02:49
Drapes - you are a man of the world and in your nautical travellings you must have visited my neck of the woods. There you will have seen for yourself the invention that allows Australians to hang on to the globe even though we be upside down - the bar.

The bar counter has a lip whereby one's non-drinking hand can obtain a steadying purchase and there's also the footrail which allows one's feet to be locked under to stop one floating away. Mind you, it doesn't seem to work after 7 or 8 beers. One can float away quite happily then.

Jetex Jim
24th Oct 2008, 04:17
Any proof of the existence of God that depends on the 'science doesn't know everything' position, can only reduce in conviction over time.
-- As science learns more and more, God becomes less and less.

In fact science is being pretty busy, and making good progress on human conciousness, see Theatre (http://www.imprint.co.uk/theatre.htm) and despite many problems conceptualising quantum physics, enough is known practically to make semiconductor circuitry that exploits aspects of the phenomena.

The problem with the existence of God, how can you have a consistent set of physical laws, and still have room for a God? If God is to have any influence on things he must have a way of doing it that doesn't requiring him to break any of the physical laws that he, presumably, set up in the first place.

But, and this is Miller's position, quantum physics, provides that opportunity. --Within quantum physics, by definition indeterminate and not likely to get less so any time soon, there is scope for God to influence matters and not violate any of the macro level, Newtonian physical laws.

Jetex Jim
24th Oct 2008, 04:30
There you will have seen for yourself the invention that allows Australians to hang on to the globe even though we be upside down - the bar Well, maybe.

AUSTRALIA GETS DRUNK, WAKES UP IN NORTH ATLANTIC
Tired of Being Isolated and Ignored, Continent Isn't Bloody Moving


http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/images/australia.gif

Read the rest of the news item.
SatireWire | Australia Gets Drunk, Wakes Up in North Atlantic (http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml)

Davaar
24th Oct 2008, 04:41
he must have a way of doing it that doesn't requiring him to break any of the physical laws that he, presumably, set up in the first place.


Where would that place the anomalous behaviour of water?

Loose rivets
24th Oct 2008, 05:47
I think we make too many assumptions about what God might be like. I just could be that the Universe was created in the ultimate Oooooooops! moment. Remember the excitement about realizing that gravity seemed to have about the right total equivalent energy to be equal and opposite to the total Mass/Energy in the Universe. The implications of this are vast. The Universe could be the ultimate free lunch.

Work on proving the Big Bang has been ongoing for a very long time. It's not that it was cast in stone as soon as the first numbers were in, but, like all good science, the data seems to be fitting beautifully as it continues to flow in. One good read in George Smoot's ‘Wrinkles in Time'. If nothing else, it spells our just what a top research scientist can go through to complete a paper. Lost gondolas, gondolas that wouldn't detach from their balloons. Finding bits of your experiment on the counter of a sweaty hotel in a jungle, the rest of the works being held for ransom. And all that's after assuming it was lost for years. The way in which they stabilized the experiment in the redundant U2s. Utter genius. Then nearly killing himself on the South Pole. I'd have let someone else go! Dr Smoot got his recognition, but so many don't.

Back to the Ooooooooops moment and an extravagant piece of lateral thinking. A departure from real science it may be, but then, what is reality?

If a creator was doing a bit of science, just for fun you understand, then found that this something they were working on unpacked for billions of years without putting any more fuel in. They may be quite taken aback, but it might just be something that happens to creators.

To make use of this exciting material playground, the creator may have had to design a self-replicating being to exist in the newfound material space. Okay, that took a while, but time is plentiful outside spacetime. Now He has lost some of his workers, loyal angles that have striven tirelessly on this project. Where are they? Sucked into the vortex? Eternal beings being destroyed? Not possible. Yet they are gone. They were in their material form to feel the new reality, but that wouldn't protect them from the condensed fire they found themselves in. Early death for a mortal is tragic enough, but just imagine losing beings that would otherwise have lived forever.

The Universe is now being watched with tearful eyes...the new toy has lost its glamor, but then suddenly, the minds of the Eternals are heard, carried on a force that is the fabric of this new material. The message is instant everywhere, the new life-forms are alive in this structure...they have survived encoded on the Higgs field perhaps. But where? The search begins, but time will run out for the material beings - they were designed that way. But wait, they can replicate. Their programming is intricate and cunning in the extreme: they can reduce to the simplest structures then bide their time for a billion relativistic years. If the ground is fertile long enough, they can re-build to the perfection of the original design. On one small blue planet, they have made some small progress on their long journey back.

How would the creator feel about these life-forms. Ultimately they will regain the image he designed for those that enter the material frame, and after all, they were once part of Him. But now He despairs. On the fight back, the programming that was to have made them survive the rough edges of a physical world, has caused them to become tireless warriors, they have not only become survival machines, but beings that gain reward from their brutality. The original souls are surely lost, yet, careful observation over thousands of years, yields surprising results. The very essence of the original mind is still embedded in each and every one of the creatures.

Perhaps the selfish gene and its vicious encapsulation, are just the mortal interpretation of how to protect the perfect code.

Blacksheep
24th Oct 2008, 13:49
The existence of time creates the illusion of space and velocity, but it isn't possible to extrapolate any of the three without reference to the others. The idea of extrapolating backwards in time to a theoretical Big Bang is therefore, the ultimate tautology. Did the universe begin with the emergence of matter or with the emergence of time? And what has Space to do with either?

God is a philosopher, not a scientist.

Dr Jekyll
24th Oct 2008, 13:56
Who was it who said, "philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex"? Well said however it was.

henry crun
24th Oct 2008, 22:26
Mr. Draper, St Augustine, who lived well before the Venerable Bede, knew the earth was round and had an answer to that question.

He reckoned that as all humans have descended from a common ancestor, the other side of the world was too far away for it to have be settled.

tony draper
24th Oct 2008, 22:50
Time and space cannot exist if there is only one single indivisible object,they can only come into existence if there are two thingies floating about.
So there,
:rolleyes:

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 17:08
1. In #66 above Jetex, if I correctly understand him, touches on the possibility of God's varying the laws of nature; and in $68 I allude to the anomalous behaviour of water, without which I gather life would be impossible.

This thread has been visited by one or more of the Great Science Worshippers, from whom I expected at the very least one of their mandatory Google Cartoons in response. I am wholly non-scientific. Must I believe that the anomalous behaviour of water is a Darwinian evolution, or was it Intelligent/Negligent design?

2. Now to draper. Tony, old man, you understand these things and I do not, but I believe you have a telescope and can foretell That Which Will Be. That being so I rely on you a lot to tell me what I should know, and I rather feel you have let me down a bit. Let me explain.

Chap on the TV has just told us, me especially, that the earth rotates on its own axis more slowly than before, that it is non-synchronous with the moon, and that the moon is receding from the earth at the rate of 4 cm per annum. Not much, you may say, but it has the chap worried and me too. I have been pretty anxious these past hours.

Give or take a billion years ago, the earth-day was only 20 hours or so and the earth month about 14 days. That is what I think the chap said, and he seemed to speak with authority The moon makes the water swill to and fro.

The upshot will be that in only three more billion years, the earth and the moon will be synchronous. The moon will, in conseqence, be constant in its position relative to the earth, stuck as it were forever over Mackay, Australia or Devon, England, or Timbuktoo, in French whatever it is.

That will be fine, I suppose, assuming you like the moon, if you live in the appropriate spot. It also forms a pointer for present investment in or avoidance of real estate for investment.

There is more. In that latter day, the day will be 40 days long [is there a Biblical allusion here?], as will the night. I speculate this may affect crop yields materially.

There was not a word of this in the recent federal election here, although Goofy devoted a great deal of time to his Green Shift and to buying a bicycle.

So here we are: Was that chap on the TV right? If so, what should we do?

tony draper
26th Oct 2008, 17:52
It is not difficult to understand, the Moons gravity pulls the earths core up against the mantle which acts rather like the rubber brake shoe thingy on one's bicycle wheel rim bringing said bicycle to a slow stop, the Earth being somewhat larger has already brought the moon almost to a stop and given time the Moon acting as a brake she will bring us to a standstill as well.
Three billion years ago the Moon was indeed closer,in fact close enough to cause even the dry land to rear up at high tide.
:uhoh:

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 18:43
As for the Nicene Creed...I know now that there are a whole lot of hypocrites...they're the ones that do all the bobbing-and-weaving in church!

... That's me in the spotlight, that's me in the corner......I'm losing my religion......

:p So be it!

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 18:47
Oh I understand. It is just that it came to me unawares. Thing is, what to do about it? Seems to me, not much. The Green Party under Barbie and da Leeberal under Goofy droned on endlessly about the dribble of CO2 that my car produces, but not a word about the moon and the 40 hour day.

The anomalous behaviour of water I leave to others to explain.

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 18:49
Davaar....You're far too clever for the likes of me so I don't read your posts! Maybe one fine day we can meet in heaven, hmm?

:p

merlinxx
26th Oct 2008, 18:59
3 bloody billion years, I'm not hanging around for that long, last orders 'll be called, 5 Nigerians just in case it comes afore last knockings:}(panic)

frostbite
26th Oct 2008, 19:00
Shirley, if we send a few more rockets to the Moon that will push it back to where it was?

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:09
YouTube - Earth Wind & Fire - Fantasy (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=_SIR0LgdIaY&feature=related)

....In a land called fantasy.......I am free....till your soul is in ecstacy.....

:p So be it.......!!!

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 19:09
#66 above Jetex, if I correctly understand him, touches on the possibility of God's varying the laws of nature; and in $68 I allude to the anomalous behaviour of water,
Well alright, but what behaviour of water is anamalous? Not the old water into wine trick, i take it.

The Miller position is not that God would vary any of the laws of nature, or even that He would break them. More that quantum physics, as it is observed and understood, allows 'room' for God to influence matters while allowing all physical laws to remain intact.

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 19:09
Not at all.

As for the Nicene Creed

Years ago I thought of starting the Pre-Nicean Church of Christ, with me as Archimandrite. L Ron Hubbard did well at a similar notion. In these pages I offered a few bishoprics for sale, just to meet costs, you understand, but there were no takers. I may still be able to squeeze you in.

My own belief is that the words of the Creeds, Nicean, Apostles', or other, pass unnoticed and not understood through the minds of 999,000 per 1,000,000 of those who recite them each Sunday.

I think it was much the same at Nicaea back in the fourth century. I am still reading on the topic, but Arius was tossed out there for his Other Belief. So far as I understand him, I rather agree with Arius, as have many over the centuries. There have always been big questions about the Trinity.

My advice is to read the Creeds not dismissively but sceptically. They are all the products of committees, clever chaps no doubt, many of them though not all, but they have little to do with your faith or mine.

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:15
Davaar....You're so sexy when you talk like that! I could be converted, you know!

:p

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 19:18
but what behaviour of water is anamalous? Not the old water into wine trick, i take it.


Indeed not. I thought I had used the standard nomenclature. That is what they taught at school. The anomaly is that liquid water cooling from about +4 degrees C down to 0 degrees C expands as it moves to the solid state we call "ice", which floats. This behaviour is unique to water. All other substances contract. Without the anomaly, ice would not float. Since we may not even speculate about intelligent design, I shall take it that water is Darwinian, and just learned. Shall I?

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:21
No conversion in sight!

:p So be it!

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 19:23
From 'ask a scientist'
Why does water expand when it freezes?

Water expands when it freezes because of "hydrogen bonding."
This means that the hydrogen on an H2O has a strong attraction
for the "lone-pair", unbonded electrons on other nearby H2O
molecules. In crystalline ice, each oxygen atom is surrounded
by 4 hydrogen atoms (2 of its own and two from two other,
neighboring water molecules in the crystalline lattice). This
forms a "network structure" which is, incidentally, the same
as diamond's (but with weaker bonds). The network structure has
a lot of space between molecules. In fact, there is more
space between molecules in this network structure than there
is (on the average) in the liquid structure. Since there
is more space between molecules in ice than in liquid water,
ice is less dense.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/imgche/waterhex.gif

Water is unusual in expanding when freezing, but it is not the only substance which does so. Iron also expands on freezing and this is why it can be cast.

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:24
YouTube - The Witches of Eastwick: Darryl Van Horne's Speech (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PVW_6pK93n0)

:p:p

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 19:37
From 'ask a scientist'


Interesting about iron. The science explanation gives the answer to "How?", as in "this is how the anomaly works". But why the anomaly?

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:39
I was 'high churched' and yet stray..........hmmmm?
YouTube - Bewitched (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ihuQFnuxhkY&feature=related)

:p

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 19:39
I guess it's something to do with water being made out of H2O

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:41
Throw water on a witch at your peril!!!!!!!

:p

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 19:41
I was 'high churched' and yet stray..........hmmmm?
Catholic school girl by any chance Lil?

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:45
NooooooooooooooooOOOooooooOOOoooooOOOoo! Had experience of a convent run by German nuns...don't know if problem was because they were German or.nuns......? They were masochists...especially if you weren't Catholic! Am CoE high churched.:p

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 19:46
No conversion in sight

Unlike the "Atheists for Atheism", I do not ram, as they say, religion or anti-religion down your throat. Believe or disbelieve as best pleases you. The difference between belief and unbelief, though, may well be more than six minutes.

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:47
Girls' private boarding school of course! No balance there.

Give me a nano-second!

:p

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 19:50
I guess it's something to do with water being made out of H2O

Come now. That is just begging the question.

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 19:50
NooooooooooooooooOOOooooooOOOoooooOOOoo!

Bummer I was hoping you still had the uniform. But perhaps those nuns had some nasty habits:hmm: I saw a Ken Russell movie once...

B Fraser
26th Oct 2008, 19:53
Why are there so many minibuses ? Perhaps it's because nobody would let the catholic buses pull out :}

One of the many things I don't understand about religion is why churches, mosques, temples etc. are fitted with lightning conductors. Are we meant to believe in someone who can create a universe but can't prevent the weather from scoring an own-goal ?

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:55
Oh, but I wore white shirt, tie, navy blue suit , tights, blue lace up shoes, basher and gloves to church.......

Altiora Peta.....and, boy, do I aim!!!!

:p

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 19:57
Come now. That is just begging the question.

Not all molecules are so simple (2 atoms of Hydrogen one of oxygen) as to be able to 'assemble', as it were, into a lattice structure.

Look davaar, I'm no physicist, ask me one about arinc 429 or something. Besides Lil's distracting me.

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 19:59
One of the many things I don't understand about

.... atheists is that they are such fundamentalists. They all disbelieve, of course, but they disbelieve in what most believers, who are not fundamentalists, also disbelieve in, and account that a triumph. Wet, really.

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 19:59
Har-bloody-har...doesn't take much to distract you, SonnyJim!

:p

Allah Akbar!!!

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 20:00
No, but a picture would be better.

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 20:02
Perv!

:p

Inshala!

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 20:04
Perv!

http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Inshala!

And you have a problem with that?

Captain Stable
26th Oct 2008, 20:06
Will you two please get a room? :suspect: One with a two-way mirror would be good... :ooh: :E

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 20:09
Didn't Ken Russell do that crap movie 'The Wicca Man' ?...What a load of bolllocks!! He's a perv!!!!

:p

B Fraser
26th Oct 2008, 20:10
They all disbelieve, of course, but they disbelieve in what most believers, who are not fundamentalists, also also disbelieve inWhat, the god squad don't really believe in omnipotence ? I just wish they would put up a good arguement for once.

Maybe the religious would care to issue a version of their respective books with all the bits they don't really believe left out. Scientists do it all the time.

Jetex Jim
26th Oct 2008, 20:14
Didn't Ken Russell do that crap movie 'The Wicca Man' ?...

No.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/The_Devils.jpg/200px-The_Devils.jpg
Described by one critic as, "grand fiesta for sadists and perverts",

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 20:21
Too funny, Jimbo.......:p

YouTube - Elvis Presley (You're The) Devil In Disguise (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct43JskT2Uw)

:cool:

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 21:14
Scientists do it all the time.


Two words: Kyoto Protocol.

P.S. Jetex

Look davaar

My references to you were acknowledgments of earlier statements by you, not objectives. I was looking more to the Googlecartoonmen, but truly I am easy.

I fear the Jade is toying with you but Go To It anyway. They are all beyond my league, but in any case there is for me but one Irene Adler in these pages.

Storminnorm
26th Oct 2008, 21:30
I think there's no answer to all this except to think about
what DesCarte said on the subject after wandering off into
the woods for a couple of years to wrestle with the problem.
He came to the conclusion that it would be better to believe
in God rather than not believe because, if you died believing
in God you stood a good chance of getting into Heaven if it's
really there, whereas if you didn't believe in God you wouldn't
stand any chance at all of getting in.
And if there is no "afterlife", with God and his cohorts being just
a figment of Man's fevered brain, it didn't REALLY matter at all
anyhow.

So get believing O.K.!!!

Sort of "Fail-safe" system really. :ok:

larssnowpharter
26th Oct 2008, 21:35
Years in the woods to solve a simple game theory problem.

I think not

Lars
(who promptly vanished)

shedhead
26th Oct 2008, 21:52
Bertrand Russell was asked what his reply would be to god if god asked him about his lack of belief, his answer was "no evidence dear chap, no evidence"

Storminnorm
26th Oct 2008, 21:54
Supposed to be true Lars, at least that's what I was told!!!!

Davaar
26th Oct 2008, 22:02
"no evidence dear chap, no evidence

"Meenister! Meenister! We didna ken!"

"Ah weel! Ye ken noo!".

larssnowpharter
26th Oct 2008, 22:04
Supposed to be true Lars, at least that's what I was told!!!!

Yer missed the philo sophie bit at the end mate!

Lars

(one hates explaining - nearly - jokes)

tony draper
26th Oct 2008, 23:13
Always thought the best plan would be to live the life of a sinning disbeliever then repent on your death bed and if it all turns out to be true you get to go to the front of the queue, and if not, well on your death bed your probably not up to much in the way of doing a bit more sinning anyway so you haven't missed nowt
:)

Loose rivets
26th Oct 2008, 23:25
I have a feeling that a cunning plan like that would be a little transparent.


Anyway. Water. The astonishing thing about water is not just its structure...well, it is in a way, because that structure causes an almost unbelievable pattern of electrical fields.

So, since this is such a bizarrely fortunate occurrence, it can't have happened by chance...but wait, that would give the game away.... Sound familiar?

Back to these fields. They form entwined with the molecule in a way that the outer cloud of electrons and the long lobes of the fields, form a fairly accurate cube. It is this virtually unique shape that gives water its...erm, wateryness.

Mmmm...crap English. Something is either unique or not...in this case, I think it is.

TURIN
27th Oct 2008, 01:14
Great Science Worshippers

Eh?

Surely that be an oxymoron? :}:O




Anyway back to the thread....

Er, what was it about again? :ugh:

Davaar
27th Oct 2008, 01:39
Surely that be an oxymoron?

No. It is their god, whose Truth is revealed through prophets. Its priests suppress heresies and conduct inquisitions against heretics.

Loose rivets
27th Oct 2008, 01:55
I think there's no answer to all this except to think about
what DesCarte said on the subject after wandering off into
the woods

Mr and Mrs Carte spent ages looking for Des...thought he was never coming back. :p

TURIN
27th Oct 2008, 02:16
I think you are confused Daavar.

There is no worship involved.

Observation? Yes.

Theory? Yes.

Evidence? Not always. But when it is, then quite rightly scientists spread the word.

The word is spread through use of sound argument and detailed, documented results from experiments etc.

Scientists do not demand that you "believe" their theory (unlike the JW on the doorstep Sunday morning).

I may consider myself an Athiest not because I "believe" in Science but because I accept what I can understand as truth.
That which I don't understand or can't prove is not magic or the work of a higher consiousness.

When my 5 yr old walks through the front door after school singing hymns and telling fairy stories about Adm & Eve I also feel like putting a banner across the car/house/school gate extolling the Humanist view.

Davaar
27th Oct 2008, 02:27
Scientists do not demand that you "believe" their theory (unlike the JW on the doorstep Sunday morning).


Oh Yes they do. See the calumny heaped on "deniers" who do not push the case that climate warming is caused by emissions from fossil-fuelled vehicles.

On the other hand, I have had a few, perhaps half a dozen in 70+ years, visits from JW, and invariably they have been polite, offered me their "Watchtower", been declined, and departed with goodwill on both sides. You seem to have been unlucky. Did one of those old ladies really take command of your doorstep on a Sunday morning and demand that you believe their agitprop? If you say so, I shall of course believe you, however contrary it is to my own experience.

TURIN
27th Oct 2008, 02:31
Climate warming??

Must be the will of the gods. ;)

Davaar
27th Oct 2008, 02:36
There you are, you see, with your half-truths. Climate warming and cooling are as old as the hills. You can read about them in Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". I was careful to link climate warming to the attributed cause of burning fossil fuels, which you were just as careful to evade. I am told that there has been no measurable warming for the past decade. I have not checked. Is it true?

Did one of those old ladies really take command of your doorstep on a Sunday morning and demand that you believe their agitprop?

Loose rivets
27th Oct 2008, 04:15
On the other hand, I have had a few, perhaps half a dozen in 70+ years, visits from JW,


Mmmm...me too. Last time, some months ago, I launched into my concepts of theology with huuuuuuuuuge enthusiasm. One white, and one Latino, smart young men - beating away the mosquitoes with subtlety befitting junior politicians.

Their eyes got bigger and they fell silent as I explained that there could be another reality. They picked out the best Bible...one leather bound, and handed it to me. They explained from the other end of the drive how they had to be somewhere...anywhere, but they had to be there now.

Such nice young men. But why were their minds closed to a universe that they didn't understand?

Jetex Jim
27th Oct 2008, 07:00
Back to these fields. They form entwined with the molecule in a way that the outer cloud of electrons and the long lobes of the fields, form a fairly accurate cube. It is this virtually unique shape that gives water its...erm, wateryness.
OK now that Lil's no longer passing notes around the class. What's all this about? Can you cite a reference i can read.

Skypilot
27th Oct 2008, 11:02
A whole load of folks now seem to want to use science (and pseudo-science) to make the case for a god who uses quantum mechanics and the like to influence the world whilst remaining indetectable.

Even assuming that this were possible, please remember that in the absence of evidence - which is clearly unlikely to ever be forthcoming - such a god remains no more than hypothetical. I think that god is rather like the Loch Ness Monster; It's certainly theoretically possible that either exists, but the evidence produced to date is so unconvincing that a reasonable person ought to remain sceptical.

However, even this seems to me to miss a blindingly obvious point; Any such '21st Century' god would be a brand new creation, and so utterly different from the character portrayed in the Abrahamic religions that you really couldn't claim them to be one and the same! Why would a god who was so willing and able to interfere in the lives of the Jews over a period of several thousand years suddenly start hiding behind the uncertainty principle?

merlinxx
27th Oct 2008, 11:29
Anyone seen Brian ?:confused:

Captain Stable
27th Oct 2008, 13:38
Skypilot, the entire point is not the use of science to try to establish a case for there (possibly) being a God but rather the futility of using science to try to prove that, because he does not exist within the Universe that we think we know so well, he does not exist at all.

Assume for one moment if you would that something - anything - does exist outside the known Universe. Because the rules we know work only within the known Universe, ergo different rules must exist outside. We have no way of knowing whether anything outside the Universe can affect anything within.

And furthermore, anything existing outside the three spatial dimensions with which we are familiar (or more if you really can follow Stephen Hawking's writings), it would also exist outside of time. Therefore God would not be tied to any human concept of time and trying to limit him to causal or historical sequence of events is futile.

There can be no evidence of God's existence. Similarly, there can be no evidence for his non-existence. And anyone who claims to state with any degree of certainty that we have found no evidence of God's existence and that it is impossible to find such evidence and that therefore God does not exist is guilty of the most monstrous arrogance and blinkered stupidity.

Flame Lily FX
27th Oct 2008, 14:15
There's probably no God because there's a Goddess.

:phttp://www.pprune.org/avatars/blank.gif

under_exposed
27th Oct 2008, 14:18
There can be no evidence of God's existence

As there is no evidence for God, how did we decide he existed?
We must have guessed. What are the chances we guessed right?

Blacksheep
27th Oct 2008, 14:23
...does exist outside the known UniverseBut, since it apparently formed from nothing into nothingness, the universe can have no outside. It is a mistake to envisage the Big Bang as an explosion of matter into the vacuum of space. Before the hypothesised Big Bang, by definition, there would have been no space for the matter to explode into. The space itself would be created simultaneously with time and matter. (If "simultaneous" is not itself a rather ridiculous concept when considering the beginning of time.)




Looking at that Big Bang hypothesis from another angle though, just because all matter appears to originate in a single source, like railway tracks vanishing at the horizon, is it reasonable to assume that it actually does? Maybe the universe does have an outside after all, with a gaggle of gods sitting around it playing some kind of heavenly board game.

Celestial Uckers anyone?

13thDuke
27th Oct 2008, 14:45
Maybe the universe does have an outside after all, with a gaggle of gods sitting around it playing some kind of heavenly board game

Not very good at it then are they? The easier question to answer is not whether God exists, but whether, even if he did, he is worthy of worship.

To which the answer is no.

Were he a football team, he'd be Tottenham Hotspur.

ORAC
27th Oct 2008, 14:50
The universe is a zero sum game (http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm), it arose out of nothing and eventually will return to nothing. Foam and froth out of the underlying reality.

Latest thinking in mathematics has it that there may be an underlying reality behind quantum mechanics, we just can't understand it or see it because our unverse is like the shadow cast on a wall, we can see the result, which seems random, but without the ability to the objects, or to understand how or why they cast a shadow, we will never grasp them.

That, of course, is another way of saying we are a universe of information, perhaps even a programme running on some greater computer, where we are incapable of seeing outside the virtual reality. The holographic universe (http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html).

I mean, sheesh, who needs a God with a meta-universe like that?

Blacksheep
27th Oct 2008, 14:54
Hmm. Holographic Virtual Reality eh?
Maybe the universe does have an outside after all, with a gaggle of gods sitting around it playing some kind of heavenly board game.I'm sorry, I'll read that again...

Maybe the universe does have an outside after all, with a gaggle of gods standing around it playing some kind of heavenly Wii game.

Duckbutt
27th Oct 2008, 15:03
Were he a football team, he'd be Tottenham Hotspur.

But they've just sacked their manager and got a new one.........

Storminnorm
27th Oct 2008, 15:45
ORAC, thanks for the Zero Sum Game.
Slept like a log within 2 minutes. :ok:

Harry Redknapp took over at Spurs.
They WON 2-0.

THAT is a Miracle!!!! :ok:

Captain Stable
27th Oct 2008, 16:34
That zero sum game is a total load of twaddle. I did quite enough nuclear physics and cosmology combined with maths at Uni to appreciate that whoever wrote it is playing.

Given those calculations I could quite easily demonstrate that 1=0.

Furthermore, since it looks only at the Universe without any knowledge of anything outside the Universe, it still proves nothing as to the existence (or otherwise) of God.

Maths: 4/10
Philosphy 2/10
Theology 0/10

Not even sufficient for a Gentleman's Pass degree. Will have to do a lot better for a research fellowship.

tony draper
27th Oct 2008, 16:46
We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here,so on and so forth as the old song goes.
:rolleyes:

ORAC
27th Oct 2008, 18:41
That zero sum game is a total load of twaddle. I did quite enough nuclear physics and cosmology combined with maths at Uni to appreciate that whoever wrote it is playing.


......The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, of the City University in New York, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.

Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist. Curiously, the energy in a gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the Universe is exactly flat , then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero. In that case, the quantum rules allow it to last forever. If you find this mind-blowing, you are in good company. George Gamow told in his book My World Line (Viking, New York, reprinted 1970) how he was having a conversation with Albert Einstein while walking through Princeton in the 1940s. Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues had pointed out to him that according to Einstein's equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, because its negative gravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy. "Einstein stopped in his tracks," says Gamow, "and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down".......

Captain Stable
27th Oct 2008, 19:53
Orac, if you're going to quote other websites, at least have the courtesy to credit them rather than pass it off as your own work.

Lost man standing
27th Oct 2008, 22:25
Davaar

The way that man-made climate change is pushed is not science, in fact despite the shameful involvement of senior scientists it is anti-scientific. What you have seen there is exactly how science should not be persued. It certainly not representative of science.

ORAC
27th Oct 2008, 23:00
Orac, if you're going to quote other websites, at least have the courtesy to credit them rather than pass it off as your own work.

That's the point of the ...... at the start and end.I am sorry if you don't understand that, but I can't be bothered to educate the ignorant...or those trying to make a pathetic point....

Davaar
27th Oct 2008, 23:13
The way that man-made climate change is pushed is not science, in fact despite the shameful involvement of senior scientists it is anti-scientific.

Thank you for that. Despite that, the religious sceptics here endlessly purport to rely on the objectivity of science as contrasted with the woolly faiths of the believers. That is in addition to taking the most fundamental views of religion (Adam and Eve, Earth's age 6,000 years, harps in Heaven, and so on) as if they were mainstream. That is, when they do not firmly base their, ah, reasoning on not-funny cartoons.

kansasw
27th Oct 2008, 23:30
Davaar

The way that man-made climate change is pushed is not science, in fact despite the shameful involvement of senior scientists it is anti-scientific. What you have seen there is exactly how science should not be persued. It certainly not representative of science.

That's easy for you to say. "...it is anti-scientific....not representative of science."

None of us are likely to persuade the other regardless of citations, peer reviews, self-interested foregone conclusions, and belief or non-belief in invisible rulers of the cosmos. So I hesitate to challenge you here on the point of AGW yes or no, our minds are made up.

I do want to ask you, how would you define "scientific" and compare and contrast with "anti-scientific," your term. "...not representative of science..."

Do you favor the scientific or the anti-scientific (your term, I don't know what it means) position?

arcniz
28th Oct 2008, 00:02
"God" is the embodiment of humanity's yearning to own, or at least to be on good terms with, the seemingly infinite and unfathomable principles that envelop and ultimately control our mortal lives. The immortality part is a bit of value-added advertising, deliberately not stated in clear terms, that each one who lives may live on in the memories of those who follow, if worthy.

Science has very similar and parallel motivations - to understand the natural universe, thereby improving our collective means and ability to control circumstances that affect humanity. Those in league with science also seek immortality - by discovering and revealing some "truth" of the natural world that may bear their mark as long as men are present to remember the chain of connections that comprise scientific understanding.

Typically religion relies on ancient teachings and traditional practices as the greater sources of truth, with newer information seen as tentative and apocryphal. "Acceptance" by "the Church", the Tribe, or whatever body holds responsibility, is the measure of validity in religion. Older ideas are, by definition, more deeply and thoroughly accepted than newer ones.

Science relies on older information for the origins of basic concepts and themes, but actively challenges all concepts, regardless of age, and seeks to replace older ideas that do not fully "work" with newer ones that more nearly do. The measure of success and therefore validity of concepts in science is based on the "predictive power" of those concepts -- to combine with the components of new problems and challenges and then accurately predict a result that may actually be confirmed by methodical and precise observation.

Religion predicts all sorts of things, but never seeks confirmation or validation in any reality outside itself.

Science continuously and recursively works to quantify and qualify the dynamic transactional realities of the physical world and to understand the invisible powerful forces that determine cause and effect. It seeks internal errors and inadequacies and corrects older ideas with newer ones when found wrong.

The power of organised religions is their ability to maintain an enveloping cloak of comfortable superstition that seems to somewhat protect us from our ignorance.

The ability to predict and harness the principles of cause and effect, and to make things happen as thoughtfully planned, is the power of Science.


.

Lost man standing
28th Oct 2008, 00:18
Davaar

There is a huge difference.

Wait a few years and any fundamentalist scientific stance disappears. Either it is upheld by further evidence or destroyed by it, because science advances knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, cannot develop by its very nature. It is either exactly as originally stated, or it is nothing. If anything changes then why believe it at all? The only reason anyone ever believes is that the belief is passed down. If that belief is different from what was passed down, then it has no reason at all for the belief other than the believer's own arogant assumption that their god is what they want "him" to be.

Science and religion both have their extremists. Religion can never test them, science can.

Rightbase
28th Oct 2008, 00:20
Suppose God did design everything....
Suppose scientists eventually find out how she did it. How would that prove she doesn't exist?

More importantly, we should be trying to figure out how she did it all in under a week. That would be really useful if the men mess this world up.

Lost man standing
28th Oct 2008, 00:31
Kansaw

I favour the scientific position. We do not know how to predictably alter the climate. That means that we don't know whether human activity has a dominant effect on climate change, but it also means that we have no idea of the effect of any response we make to climate change.

As it happens I suspect humans do not have a dominant effect. One of the reasons for this is the anti-scientific methods of those that try to persuade us. To say that the debate is closed, as was said by the head of the Royal society of all people is exactly how science should not be done, i.e. anti-scientific. He should have lost his position for that one statement.

Rightbase

What possible reason would you have for thinking a god does exist? Don't get the question the wrong way round!

arcniz
28th Oct 2008, 00:33
who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.

haaay... I wrote about that in 1966.... as "statistically unbalanced nothing".

Loose rivets
28th Oct 2008, 05:56
If you find this mind-blowing, you are in good company. George Gamow told in his book My World Line (Viking, New York, reprinted 1970) how he was having a conversation with Albert Einstein while walking through Princeton in the 1940s. Gamow casually mentioned that one of his colleagues had pointed out to him that according to Einstein's equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, because its negative gravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy. "Einstein stopped in his tracks," says Gamow, "and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down".



This is a tale that sticks in my mind, yet I could never remember who it was that stopped in the middle of the road...I didn't think it was Einstein, but then my memory for names :ugh:

Convincing students that the aether is 'something' rather than emptiness, is perhaps one of the main diverticulitis that teaching professors have in the first year or so. They, the students, have often been brainwashed into taking the characteristics of spacetime out of their mental models. James Clarke Maxwell did such a good job in proving that it wasn't needed, that it sort of became unacceptable to believe in it.

Captain Stable
28th Oct 2008, 09:44
That's the point of the ...... at the start and end.I am sorry if you don't understand that, but I can't be bothered to educate the ignorant...or those trying to make a pathetic point....Orac, I did not insult you, so I think there is little cause for you to insult me, unless it be that you were miffed at being caught out. A little row of dots can mean anything. It is not the same as quotation marks which, I think you will appreciate, do what they say on the tin - mark something as a quotation. Nor is it the same as a quote passagewhich also does what it says on the tin - marks something as a quotation. It would also assist people if you were to make a reference to the website from where you lifted your post since others may like to read in full what you selectively quote.

Edited to add:- I wonder if the "or those trying to make a pathetic point" part of your post was a quote from somewhere else - it's just that you enclosed it in a series of full stops? :)

Blacksheep
28th Oct 2008, 11:10
Furthermore, since it looks only at the Universe without any knowledge of anything outside the Universe, it still proves nothing as to the existence... What is perhaps the most widely a accepted of the current theories - the Big Bang - demonstrates quite adequately that there is nothing outside the Universe. Thus, if the theory is correct, there is nothing to be gained from pondering on the existence or otherwise of God. Either this creative entity exists within its own creation or "It" doesn't exist at all. Neither postulation can be tested by any means currently known to science; it is rather akin to a single cell trying to prove the existence of the whole body. Trying to use known scientific means to determine the existence or otherwise of a creative entity remains futile.

Of course, it is possible that the Big Bang is an illusion that never actually happened at all and we are chasing yet another rainbow.

Flame Lily FX
28th Oct 2008, 17:24
Time, gentlemen!

Diderot. 'People who believe it is a god and not laws that make men honest are but little advanced.'
:p

http://static.flickr.com/38/105688432_de1b5fc8fb.jpg

Romeo India Xray
28th Oct 2008, 18:45
What is perhaps the most widely a accepted of the current theories - the Big Bang - demonstrates quite adequately that there is nothing outside the Universe.

Except my understanding thanks to Hawking's Brief History of Time is that current theory does not exclude more than one universe. While Hawking states that he struggles to think in terms of more than four dimensions, there may be many more, some of which may be capable of supporting beings such as ourselves (although it is likely that many would be able to sustain very much at all).

Personally I strongly doubt the existence of a god (or gods), in favour of the scientific approach. I am able to read the thesis of any published scientific work and re-create the experiments to attain the same results (or probabilities in the case of quantum mechanics). Should these experiments be beyond my capabilities (lets face it, most would be), I could delegate the task to some other suitably qualified individual. The results would be the same.

Religion on the other hand does not stand up to one single shred of questioning. It is unable to stand up to the interrogation of educated free thinking individuals. It is superfluous (sp?) in modern society insofar as anyone who dares to stand up to it and ask it questions that science has already answered will find that religion is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Having said that, do I believe that a Jesus-like person existed - yes, I do believe that the NT is based on a real person, but with something like 300 years between his life and the writing of the first gospels it is a bit like the story of Robin Hood - probably based on a real person but also probably 90% exaggeration and BS. When I was in primary school we stood in a line of about 50 kids and tried to pass a message from one end to the other ... I think you all know how much like the start message the end message was. The bible is something like this for me - probably very loosely based on a tiny bit of fact, but more likely about 99% BS.

RIX

Captain Stable
28th Oct 2008, 20:00
RIX - most scholars place the writing of the four gospels included in the New Testament around 60-90 AD for Luke, and between 90-200 AD (variously) for the others. There is considerable evidence for the author of St. Luke's gospel having been an eye witness, or at least able to interview eye witnesses, to many of the events he describes.

That aside, I have no particular beef for Christianity - but I do believe in the existence of God. I believe that if you look with an reasonably critical (or unjaundiced) eye at many alleged miracles you can find sufficient evidence for divine intervention.

As I have stated above, science cannot ever disprove the existence of God because science and our investigations are limited to examination of this Universe and events within the limits of the fourth dimension. If God exists, he would, naturally, have to be outside those limits. Hnce his existence can never be scientifically proven or disproved.

El Grifo
28th Oct 2008, 20:04
Pretty sweary but suitably irreverent :D


YouTube - Bill Hicks - Religion (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PxsGyljd6B0)

Romeo India Xray
28th Oct 2008, 20:27
My good Catholic schooling had given me the impression that the gospels were written a bit later, but anyhow the point is that they are (with the exception you cited) multi hand news, by a long way. Memories in my own mind are vividly accentuated with regard to the aspects that please me. When I relay those stories my enthusiasm comes across, perhaps you could call it spin, but then the next person to pass that information on will do so in something well removed from the light in which it happened for me.

I certainly take no exception with anyone following a religion however my own interpretation is that early religion was there to explain the inexplicable. Now, for me there is a scientific approach that explains more than I could ever wish to ask, and continues on a daily basis to explain more and more. For me, that is my belief system and I need nothing more.

RIX

Captain Stable
28th Oct 2008, 20:45
Fair enough, RIX - I won't take issue with you for any of that.

I also suffered from a catholic schooling. There seem to be one or two here! I. however, discarded much of the specifically sectarian stuff and kept what I regard as the central nub.

I understand where you are coming from re science and religion. Where we will have to agree to disagree is how much science can answer. If you would like to follow me back to St. Thomas Aquinas (or even to Plato and Aristotle) , I find the prime mover argument irresistible, and even Stephen Hawking (soon to become Lucasian Professor Emeritus, sadly) cannot answer what happened before the Big Bang.

BlooMoo
28th Oct 2008, 21:13
I also suffered from a catholic schooling

Common choice of verb in terms of 'schooling' regardless of flavour.

I. however, discarded much of the specifically sectarian stuff and kept what I regard as the central nub

You've kept the eternal suffering bit:rolleyes:

Where we will have to agree to disagree is how much science can answer

Science has the moral high ground - it seeks answers to what it accepts it doesn't understand. Whereas, religion is in the same moral sewer of the politician - it seeks to gain influence by marketing it already has them.

Loose rivets
28th Oct 2008, 21:58
J-Jim asked about water. Bit of a delay, I took some time out to re-read Beckenstein's article.


OK now that Lil's no longer passing notes around the class. What's all this about? Can you cite a reference i can read.


Probably the quickest and simplest explanation you could wish for is in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Under: Water. It clearly shows the cube and the atomic ‘orbits' and electrical lobes, making an approximate structure into the corners.

Lost man standing
28th Oct 2008, 22:50
Captain StableI. however, discarded much of the specifically sectarian stuff and kept what I regard as the central nub.So you have made up your own religion. You have no reason for believing this religion other than that you want it to be true. You have, in fact, taken on yourself the role of god in deciding what the world is like. Is it not arrogant to think that your religion is true, when everyone else's must therefore be untrue at lesat in some respect, with no evidence at all to support your idea?

BlooMoo
28th Oct 2008, 22:51
It clearly shows the cube and the atomic ‘orbits' and electrical lobes, making an approximate structure into the corners

Meaning exactly what? I'm all ears.

BlooMoo
28th Oct 2008, 22:53
You have, in fact, taken on yourself the role of god in deciding what the world is like

Please, with feeling;), don't encourage them.

BlooMoo
29th Oct 2008, 00:24
You have no reason for believing this religion other than that you want it to be true

That's why in marketing terms it pays to 'grab em young'. Instill irrational fear at a young enough age (eg 1+) then you have more than a citizen for life but a subject, no less.

Wanting it to be true is suspect, however, NEEDING it to be true is the measure of 'got em'. This is the required mentality of the 'god-fearing' citizen. They genuinely fear for themselves in terms of the superstition so they are top of the 'in favour' list politically in terms of how malleable they are...

TURIN
29th Oct 2008, 00:25
As I have stated above, science cannot ever disprove the existence of God because science and our investigations are limited to examination of this Universe and events within the limits of the fourth dimension. If God exists, he would, naturally, have to be outside those limits. Hnce his existence can never be scientifically proven or disproved.

No offence, but that sounds like a typical "The lord moves in mysterious ways..his wonders to behold etc" type of statement.

Anyway back to the thread and this bus.

The religions of the world spend fortunes on peddling their particular version of "The Truth".

One bl00dy bus dares to question all of them and all (pardon the pun) hell lets loose.

Bucket
29th Oct 2008, 00:54
I did not have the time to read through all the replys to this thread and skipped to the end though will read them when I'm off duty.

For those of us who walk the difficult Christian life, by choice, we cannot pretend to offer an answer to all the questions from those who feel it their right to mock us as a bunch of sandle wearing anoraks with beards. It seems all so very trendy these days to jibe, jeer and try to make fools of a huge bunch of people who DO believe in God with a passion. Extremists in any shape or form are rarely a good thing and yes the Christian faith, like others has it's far share of them.

As a fellow Christian freind of mine once said, "I don't do religion. I have a relationship with Christ". That is how he chose to express himself and I know there will be those who feel that he, like me is away with the fairies.

Please, back off and leave us to try and follow a path that we feel called to and stop taking a swipe at our faith and all that we hold dear to us. You would not do it to a Muslim or a Jew though the advert on the bus made no direct reference to Christians. Your cheap comments cause genuine offence. Is your gripe with us or God?

Why such a anti feeling towards God? If you don't believe in Him then what have you to worry about?

I am no better than the rest of you but you would have yourself believe that because I aspire to a better life from what I believe comes from a better example that I am better than you. That is not the case.

When I cease to breath I shall know if my earthly relationship with God was true. Until then allow me and others like me who love God with their heart and soul to seek the truth in this flawed world.

God loves you just as much, give Him a chance.

John 3:16


:ok:

TURIN
29th Oct 2008, 01:34
Please, back off and leave us to try and follow a path that we feel called to and stop taking a swipe at our faith and all that we hold dear to us. You would not do it to a Muslim or a Jew though the advert on the bus made no direct reference to Christians. Your cheap comments cause genuine offence. Is your gripe with us or God?


Precisely!

The point is religions of all faiths do not back off and leave US alone. They continue to peddle their fairy stories at schools, public places, TV, and my front door. :mad:

I have never had a jew or muslim knock at the door and try to convert me to their ideology.
Islamic fanatics have as much to answer for as Christian or Jewish.

But that is not what this thread is about.

My personal gripe cannot be with your god as he doesn't exist.

Neither is it with you personally, you have enough problems with a religion to contend with.

My gripe is with the powerful people who continue to ram religion, of all faiths, into the heads of innocent minds perpetuating the myths and "miracles" as fact for another generation.

Enough! :ok:

Davaar
29th Oct 2008, 02:01
My gripe is with the powerful people who continue to ram religion, of all faiths, into the heads of innocent minds perpetuating the myths and "miracles" as fact for another generation.


Do try to come up with variation on that "ram religion down the throat" cliche. Any variation, really. It is so unoriginal and dreary at the nth repetition.

I find it very hard to believe you have suffered much doorstep throat-ramming, but you are evidently under stress, indeed that is your complaint, so it may be so. I suspect I am older than you, and in all my life I have had less than a dozen religious knocks at the door, once from two well-mannered young Mormons and the other few times from JW.

I tell them thank you, but I am not interested, and the say thank you and leave. I fear you must be a very sensitive fellow or else you were visited by preternaturally aggressive old ladies bearing "The Watchtower". I do hope that vicious chain of events is over for you now.

Bucket
29th Oct 2008, 06:50
TURIN, I suspect that you might be overstating your personal situation a little. Forgive me if that is not the case.

A valid point had been raised here in that the Muslim and Jewish faith do not appear to doorstep the population at large. That seems to be the presevre of the Mormons and the JW's whom I have always found to be courteous and polite.

It does seem that the mainstream Christian faith of whatever denomination suffer from bad press and I am fully aware that this is often due to their seemingly hipocritical behaviour. We all end up getting tarred with the same brush.

At the heart of the matter (and the point of the thread) is my contention that those who chose not to believe in any god or God should not actively disuade those who have a genuine desire to get their own issues of spiritallity given some breathing space.

I have heard some truly extraordinary testimonies from intelligent people of ALL walks of life (drug dealers, convicts, atheists, businessmen etc) make a decision to follow the Christian faith. These people were not coerced. They had a free choice and invariably came to that choice in the peace and quiet of their own circumctances. What are we all to say to them? That they too are off with the fairies? If they wish to question and seek more infomation about the nature of their choice do I not have some Christian duty to point them in the direction of someone, (not me, I really don't know it all and still walking the walk), who is well able to answer the issues that crop up as a Christian or I am to leave them alone and aimless and let them flounder and resent me for not having helped them when it was clear they wanted some support.

At best, the majority of Christians would desire only to be there for those who wish to ask questions about the nagging feelings they have that there MIGHT be a God.

At least give them a chance to seek some answers and then let them make up their own minds for themselves.

Just like the rest of the population Christians are flawed, damaged and imperfect people.

arcniz
29th Oct 2008, 07:18
When I cease to breath I shall know if my earthly relationship with God was true. Until then allow me and others like me who love God with their heart and soul to seek the truth in this flawed world.

God loves you just as much, give Him a chance.

Unsolicited gratuitous blessings may seem more an insult than a benefit.

So, too, compulsive believers seem generally more a curse than an asset to society.

You are like nervous dogs, barking at the dark - claiming control of everything that you do not understand.

Many find this offensive, both for obvious practical effects and for more subtle reasons.

With a few thousand years of aggravation to your non-subscribing fellows in humanity on this sometimes uncomfortably small globe, you lot of "believers" have used and abused your messianic prattlings about God and righteousness to annoy and offend for a very long time running. Many might wish you not blather on about beliefs, to everyone's distraction, and then plead to be "left alone" to separately enjoy your cabalistic superstitions and practices.

The history of Western civilisation - for the last several thousand years - is a history of the descendants and followers of Abraham - Jews, Christians, and Muslims predominantly, meddling with the lives and society of all others, pronouncing laws consistent with their Abrahamic rules and their hierarchies friendly only to Abraham-style believers, and generally shoving their religious school-trained noses in the face of the remainder of humanity. They may have done some good; surely have done much wrong.

merlinxx
29th Oct 2008, 07:20
Still no one seen Brian yet?

Blacksheep
29th Oct 2008, 09:46
...current theory does not exclude more than one universe. While Hawking states that he struggles to think in terms of more than four dimensions, there may be many more,Like the ever multiplying number of particles that are discovered in particle accelerators, there undoubtedly are, though if they are arranged within the same space-time continuum as ourselves - which they must be, for our Big Bang theory provides nowhere else for them to exist - they are by definition simply part of our own universe.

One thing I never understood about Hawkings's History of Time is that he fails to adequately cover the fact that time is not a constant. Each of the detected bodies moving around in the known parts of our universe are operating in a different time-frame to us, so what we see in our telescopes must be merely those bodies whose time frame is briefly (in astronomical terms) aligned with our own. Perhaps he fails to cover this point because his History is necessarily Brief.

Anyhow, science certainly does not provide the answers, simply the questions. Those who ponder upon the whys rather than the wherefores must rely on a God to provide us a reason.

Captain Stable
29th Oct 2008, 09:46
So you have made up your own religion.No, that is not what I said. You chose to assume that.You have no reason for believing this religion other than that you want it to be true.No, for reasons I believe I have already made clear to those who don't read with a jaundiced eye.You have, in fact, taken on yourself the role of god in deciding what the world is like.No, I have a mental model of what the Universe may look like. Beyond that, I have no idea at all - as I think I made clear.Is it not arrogant to think that your religion is true, when everyone else's must therefore be untrue at lesat in some respect, with no evidence at all to support your idea?If my personal picture, my mental model of how everything works differs from anyone else's, does that make me more or less arrogant than them?

prospector
29th Oct 2008, 10:17
The only thing all religions have in common, from the Abrahamic to the Red Indians of North America, is that if you follow a certain pathway in this life you will be rewarded in Heaven, the happy hunting grounds, or paradise depending on the dominant faith of the place where you happened to be born.

This story has been able to be transmitted through the ages for one good reason.

Nobody has yet been able to come back from death and tell us the truth or otherwise of this fable.

TerminalTrotter
29th Oct 2008, 12:43
I as brought up a Christian, and depending on what I was up to or what was going on at the time, found it by turns frightening or comforting. however, I could not, after some time, believe that the whole of eternity was going to be dependent on what I did for what is, in terms of the Universe, less than the blink of an eye. (The discerning will see Catholicism here). Then I discovered Pastafairianism - The Flying spaghetti Monster - Pirates - Beer! Google it! The ideal belief system for everyman!

TT

ORAC
29th Oct 2008, 13:03
current theory does not exclude more than one universe. While Hawking states that he struggles to think in terms of more than four dimensions, there may be many more So the whole debate comes down to "The Big Brane" vs "The Big Brain" :}

Cheerio
29th Oct 2008, 13:09
The BBC are reporting a sad case - 27th October 2008. Stoned to death for adultery. The book even tells you what size of stones to use!

There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life........

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Somali woman executed by stoning (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7694397.stm)

13thDuke
29th Oct 2008, 13:15
It seems all so very trendy these days to jibe, jeer and try to make fools of a huge bunch of people who DO believe in God with a passion

If one is going to ridicule anything, it may as well be the ridiculous.

Talking snakes, ffs.

Mariner9
29th Oct 2008, 13:32
Kaa could speak & sing - albeit with a lisp - in the Jungle Book (well in the film version that is; in the book Mowgli could speak snakeish)

And Harry Potter can chat with snakes too.

Must be true then :=

Lost man standing
29th Oct 2008, 13:48
Captain StableNo, that is not what I said.By choosing what to believe and what not to believe of the religion in which you were raised you have made up a new religion, Stablism perhaps. Why do you choose those bits and reject others? Why for that matter did the Catholics from whom you learned choose to revere the life of the unborn, even unfertilised, but not the many other parts of the bible they quietly ignore? There are literally thousands of different Christian ssects, all of whom actually believe rather different things (even within the Anglican Church, very publically at the moment). Surely it is arrogant to assume that the bits you like are right, and almost all these others are wrong.for reasons I believe I have already made clear to those who don't read with a jaundiced eyeWhat are your reasons? Why should they not be looked at with a jaundiced eye? Why should religion get a pass from having to answer questions?

Every superstition should be looked at with a jauniced eye, for various reasons, one being that there are so many superstitions that are mutually exclusive that the vast majority must be untrue. Your reasons should be looked at with skepticism, as should the reasons that people believe in astrology.

Some of your arguments simply show that you cannot understand the science. For example you suggest that Hawking does not know what came before the Big Bang. Well Hawking would tell you that the concept of "before the Big Bang" is meaningless. If the universe started with the Big Bang , then that started time too, so the very idea of before this misunderstands the nature of time (very understanably, as our minds are set up to interpret the world we experinece, which includes passage of time as a consistent property. It is almost impossible to comprehend anything else apart from as a mathematical expression). What you are comenting on is like complaining that even Scott and Amundsen could not find out what was south of the South Pole. So yes, your reasons should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.

Your misunderstanding is not suprising, and I do not post to criticise you or question your intelligence or learning, as there is now a huge body of human knowledge and none of us understand much of it. That is not however an argument that anything we don't understand is god.

Cheerio
29th Oct 2008, 14:00
I think the area where conflict arises between modern Christians and atheists is something that is absolutely fundamental to atheists but maybe incidental to modern Christians. Belief in God.

If contemporary Christians tore the old testament out of the bible and instead prefaced the new testament with something along the lines of:

'We know there probably is no God, but 2000 odd years ago there was probably this well meaning chap who helps some people to frame their lives. He's in this book if you need him. Give the guy a break though, he based his teaching on the knowledge of the time. Treat what is within as probably allegorical' Who could condemn or disagree with that? It might even revitalise the church. Chuck out your dusty old King James heirlooms, and take up the Cheerio edition.

Most atheists probably respect modern Christianity for what it is - if you take the dogmatic unconditional 'faith' out of the context. Could there be a modern Christianity without God? I think there could be.

I suspect there are several levels of Christianity, and the broad minded Christian is probably closer to the broad minded atheist than either would be prepared to accept. The 'hello birds, hello sky' brigade will always be poles apart.

When those of a religious disposition are prepared to abandon the absolute and accept the distinctions of 'probably' or 'possibly' then we'll all get along so much better. Everything is unproven until proven, in this why should The Bible be any different form the Daily Mail?

We can debate on palaeontology, string theory, what happened before the big bang ad nauseum. Stick a bunch of atheist academics in a room and see if you reach consensus any time soon. What hope have we when faith get chucked in as an addtional variable?

I don't feel the need to 'believe' anything - I fed a disorientated queen bee a spoon of honey last night and kept it in a box until the frost passed the in morning when I put it carefully into deep litter under the hedge. I don't advocate stoning people. I'm a good atheist not some amoral anti-christ, but I also see good in modern Christianity. I just think 'faith' in the existence of a God is silly nowadays. Modern Christianity must move on to survive. It can still be relevant, maybe even necessary.

tony draper
29th Oct 2008, 14:09
I believe the good book stipulates a Serpent not a snake,they weren't very big on wildlife Id in those days,I mean they called Jonah's Whale a big fish!! so they weren't very big on marine biology either.
:rolleyes:

Captain Stable
29th Oct 2008, 14:11
Lost Man - you are arguing with things that I have not said. Therefore I see little point in discussing further with you until you are prepared to argue with what I have said.

13thDuke
29th Oct 2008, 14:19
I believe the good book stipulates a Serpent not a snake I thought they were synonyms? Or rather that serpent was just an old-fashioned word for snake?

I may be wrong and actually learn something today!

Blacksheep
29th Oct 2008, 14:33
if you follow a certain pathway in this life you will be rewarded in Heaven, the happy hunting grounds, or paradise That there paradise is OK in theory, but I think there may be a catch. Why are all the women there still virgins? :suspect:

Valhalla sounds like a pretty cool place, though. I think I'll plump for Valhalla.

Miserlou
29th Oct 2008, 14:34
Talking snakes?
I think Kaa was very eloquent though it may have been Kipling who put those words on his forked tongue.

"Anger is the egg of Fear
Only lidless eyes see clear.
Cobra-poison none may leech
Even so with Cobra-speech.

Open talk shall call to thee
Strength, whose mate is Courtesy.
Send no lunge beyond thy length.
Lend no rotten bough thy strength.
Gauge thy gape with buck or goat,
Lest thine eye should choke thy throat.

After gorging, wouldst thou sleep ?
Look thy den be hid and deep,
Lest a wrong, by thee forgot,
Draw thy killer to the spot

Lost man standing
29th Oct 2008, 15:55
Stable

You have said that you rejected some parts of the teachings you disagreed with, but kept what you regarded as the nub. It is in your own words that what was important in your decision was your own regard for that part. I argue from that point that you are making up your own religion. You did introduce the concept of before the Big Bang as part of your argument, despite this being meaningless. I argued form that statement that you are simply putting god into the areas of life you don't understand (as has been the role of god to mankind, a role shrinking as man's knowledge increased).

So what specifically have I argued with that you did not say?

P.S. I do not seek to criticise your lack of understanding, just question your response to it. We all have vast areas of life we do not understand, but that does not mean god is there. It just means either we investigate further and try to understand, or accept that our minds (or perhaps our time available for study) are too limited to understand everything we might wish to know.

Captain Stable
29th Oct 2008, 16:22
Lost Man -

It is difficult to attempt even to speak of anything outside the Universe we inhabit. If your concept of the four dimensions we inhabit means that "before the Big Bang" is meaningless, then perhaps speaking of anything outside the Universe is also meaningless. If nothing can have existed "before the Big Bang" then nothing can exist outside of time or this Universe either. By arguing in this manner you limit our discussion to merely the concepts we can grasp rather than the philosophical, the ontological and the theological. You then limit the discussion of whether or not God exists to looking only in the cupboards we can reach and state that anything outside our reach cannot exist because you cannot grasp the meaning of that. You therefore state that since God does not exist within reach of our intellect, he cannot exist at all. Ergo, God does not exist. Q.E.D. Bravo!

What you need to accept is that we don't know everything, and we will never know everything. As soon as you grasp that simple fact, you will, I am sure, grasp that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. No, that does not mean that God is there. But whilst I cannot prove to anyone's satisfaction that he is, nobody else can prove to anyone else's satisfaction that he is not.

That catholicism and I drifted apart and I now follow a different creed, whilst keeping some of what I learned from my catholic education does not mean that I invented a new religion.

Selfloading
29th Oct 2008, 16:44
http://www.pprune.org/ mJLR0QA/wD/AP+gvaeTAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH1QUUDyoqJjAq RwAAAN1JREFUOMu1lMkVwyAMBYe0JGpCNUFNVk3k4AUwxPGS+ILxkzX8jyTH/Sfu9nrmJ3cXlnMASyWRPwd2d5XlHCBZn1BthcbRAdxTZQDI8k3mQzg11rhF+ QZ9jdNOcQib6GFQYJYgCFucSRf6GsLU6wEY5yubTFqF2yq1vRwr3INXdQUWG +je1pELX4ED1wDyRAR0WfuAA9gloITyvsFMIMgYInYRqF6rO9Sqz9qkO5ily o0o3YBwJ+6vrdQonxWUQllhXeHcb/wabMPkP2n81ocAIoLZrMqn/4y2RwP8DcQ+d6rT9ATiAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

http://www.pprune.org/ mJLR0QA/wD/AP+gvaeTAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH1QUUDyoqJjAq RwAAAN1JREFUOMu1lMkVwyAMBYe0JGpCNUFNVk3k4AUwxPGS+ILxkzX8jyTH/Sfu9nrmJ3cXlnMASyWRPwd2d5XlHCBZn1BthcbRAdxTZQDI8k3mQzg11rhF+ QZ9jdNOcQib6GFQYJYgCFucSRf6GsLU6wEY5yubTFqF2yq1vRwr3INXdQUWG +je1pELX4ED1wDyRAR0WfuAA9gloITyvsFMIMgYInYRqF6rO9Sqz9qkO5ily o0o3YBwJ+6vrdQonxWUQllhXeHcb/wabMPkP2n81ocAIoLZrMqn/4y2RwP8DcQ+d6rT9ATiAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

So can you just pick and choose what parts of a religion you want then?
Can't be bothered with going to church? don't worry, just do as much or as little as you want, whereabouts does it say that in the Bible,Koran,Torah or whatever holy book?
if I believed in a God, I'd be in church all the time, either you believe totally or you don't believe and are kidding yourself.

Captain Stable
29th Oct 2008, 17:08
Selfloading:-

What makes you think I pick and choose? What makes you think I follow any particular organised religion? What makes you think I don't go to church/temple/synagogue/mosque?

I'm not sure what you understand by God, but I don't think any of us are here to spend all our time in church and not actually live our lives. It's more a question of how we live our lives.

And next time, if you want to take issue with something I've said, please be less aggressive and condescending. I don't criticies you for your beliefs or how you live your life - please have the same courtesy to me.

Selfloading
29th Oct 2008, 17:26
http://www.pprune.org/ mJLR0QA/wD/AP+gvaeTAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH1QUUDyoqJjAq RwAAAN1JREFUOMu1lMkVwyAMBYe0JGpCNUFNVk3k4AUwxPGS+ILxkzX8jyTH/Sfu9nrmJ3cXlnMASyWRPwd2d5XlHCBZn1BthcbRAdxTZQDI8k3mQzg11rhF+ QZ9jdNOcQib6GFQYJYgCFucSRf6GsLU6wEY5yubTFqF2yq1vRwr3INXdQUWG +je1pELX4ED1wDyRAR0WfuAA9gloITyvsFMIMgYInYRqF6rO9Sqz9qkO5ily o0o3YBwJ+6vrdQonxWUQllhXeHcb/wabMPkP2n81ocAIoLZrMqn/4y2RwP8DcQ+d6rT9ATiAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

Selfloading:-

What makes you think I pick and choose? What makes you think I follow any particular organised religion? What makes you think I don't go to church/temple/synagogue/mosque?

I'm not sure what you understand by God, but I don't think any of us are here to spend all our time in church and not actually live our lives. It's more a question of how we live our lives.

And next time, if you want to take issue with something I've said, please be less aggressive and condescending. I don't criticies you for your beliefs or how you live your life - please have the same courtesy to me.

Apologies, my remarks were not directed at you in particular, more a general observation, that the vast majority of people who say they believe in God probably don't, the number of people that say to me "yeah I believe in God, but I don't go to church or anything" amazes me, if I believed in a God then I would have to live my life as directed by that God, what other option would there be, however as no one has yet shown me a scrap of evidence for the existence of a God I continue not to believe, incidentally if some evidence for God does ever surface I hope it's quite clear which God it is, or else how are we ever going to know what one to worship?

TURIN
29th Oct 2008, 17:48
......why should The Bible be any different form the Daily Mail?

There's an element of truth in the Bible. :E

Hagbard the Amateur
29th Oct 2008, 21:43
I'm sorry if this has been posted before and it is indeed an old one but I couldn't resist;

RELIGIOUS TRUTHS

TAOISM - Sh1t happens

BUDDHISM - If sh1t happens, it isn't really sh1t

HINDUISM - This sh1t has happened before

ISLAM - If sh1t happens it is the will of A**ah

CATHOLICISM - Sh1t happens because you deserve it

PROTESTANTISM - Let sh1t happen to somebody else

JUDAISM - Why does sh1t always happen to us??

RASTAFARIANISM - Man this is some good sh1t

SCIENTOLOGY - My sh1t is made of cosmic xynophregolium and will propel me into the zygodomous dimension.

And so on

BlooMoo
29th Oct 2008, 22:40
Atheism - Religion is sh1t

Agnosticism - Religion is pretty much certainly sh1t

Creationism - Religion is selectively sh1t (but we choose where and when and by how much)

El Grifo
29th Oct 2008, 22:57
Nice one Hagbard !!

Sadly the new breed of Islam deems :- We make shit happen, it forces change.

5 mins and counting.

Reality oft times bites.

Davaar
30th Oct 2008, 00:08
Goodness me! This was a thread on the existence of God, but Hagbard, BlueMoo and El Grifo all wallow in the substance with which they are most familiar. Chacun a son gout.

El Grifo
30th Oct 2008, 00:46
Likesay Davaar.

Reality bites.

What's the patter again, something about growing up and putting away childish things

Thank you and goodnight.

Captain Stable
30th Oct 2008, 09:37
Correct, El Grifo - St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Much used as a reading at weddings by those with little imagination. Personally in that context I prefer Khalil Gibran's "The Prophet", or Louis de Bernieres' passage from "Captain Corelli's Mandolin".

El Grifo
30th Oct 2008, 09:42
Interesting but in all honesty, I actually prefer here, now, today, actuallity, you know, these kind of "in your face" happening kind of things.

Stuff from old books and movies fail to hit reality somehow in these turbulent, "godless", sometime "satanic" times. :ok:

Davaar
30th Oct 2008, 13:17
What's the patter again, something about growing up and putting away childish things


Yes, El Grifo, you are pretty much right about the patter. You could have looked it up, if you know where, just to get away from the "something about", but why bother? Anyway, although he put away childish things he was still left with an understanding imperfect, like my own, and far short of the perfection revealed to you. Until his knowledge should come to be perfected, "Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity". Your own assertions place you already at the destination. You have left him, a fair number of others, and me far behind.

El Grifo
30th Oct 2008, 14:58
Very kind Davarr, very benevolent.

I applaud you for your insight and honesty.

El G.

Hagbard the Amateur
30th Oct 2008, 21:24
Good comments, El Grifo - respect

"Always look on the bright side of life !"

shedhead
30th Oct 2008, 21:53
Back to the message on the bus,"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
I think that the message is aimed at those people who,because of their religion,look to some sort of afterlife as the cure for all ills.That,it seems to me,is what religion teaches us.It seems to be saying that, yes, life is horrible but it gets so much better when you are dead.What the bus message is saying is why wait for some possibly non existent paradise when you could be making life much better now? for everyone.
Surely a better message than promising jam tomorrow? or threatening people with eternal damnation if they do not toe the line.
So yes, enjoy your life it's probably the only one you will get, so make the most of it.

Hagbard the Amateur
30th Oct 2008, 22:01
Shedhead,

Word!

BenThere
31st Oct 2008, 00:19
Well, no.

The best feature of religion is telling us how to live - in our lives today. How we treat others, the honor of our word, the care for our families and fellow humans, how to be humble, how to be tolerant, and on and on.

While I don't practice a formal religion, I was raised in one, and have my own sense of personal spirituality. Those lessons have stuck, and I respect them and those who do practice.

CityofFlight
31st Oct 2008, 04:42
I share similar philosophies BT and couldn't agree more. :ok: :) And some of my most spiritual times, where I have felt a connection to a greater presence, have been alone in nature. (raised in high Episcopal Church)


Conversations With God was a book that put some of my experiences into perspective, as I transitioned from the doctrines of organized religion to my own personal experiences. Basic and simple, as spirituality should be. I think the essence of 'man' is to over think.

Roger Sofarover
31st Oct 2008, 06:15
BenThere

The best feature of religion is telling us how to live - in our lives today. How we treat others, the honor of our word, the care for our families and fellow humans, how to be humble, how to be tolerant, and on and on.

Agreed, and that seems to be the message in the 'books' of all three major monotheistic religions. So why do we use Gods name to wage war and to kill others in his name? It seems humanity clings to God as the ultimate cop out. Speak to a chaplain about the suffering in Dafur (or any other Human tragedy) and why God allows it and you will get the 'God works in mysterious ways' routine, or 'He has a master plan'. We are happy to accept this, rather than face our own selfish shortcomings as humans in that we did nothing about it, the 'as long as there is food on my table who gives a s**t' syndrome.

We kill in his name and use it as justification for our own wickedness as a race. All very sad really, the core ethos of religion to do good for all is a great concept, but one that is genuinely only followed by a few on this planet. The rest use religion as they wish, to satisfy their own personal agendas. I have seen the most (allegedly) Christian of people display the most appalling un-Christian behaviours towards others (like wise with Islam). Christmas has become a festival of retail excess and self indulgence, and Ramadan is equally as hypocritical. A period when all Muslims fast to 'show God we remember what it is like to be poor and hungry', rather undermined by the utter gorging that takes place at sunset annd before sunrise! People actually put weight on during Ramadan, it's a joke!!

Here endeth the sermon.

Selfloading
31st Oct 2008, 07:44
http://www.pprune.org/ mJLR0QA/wD/AP+gvaeTAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH1QUUDyoqJjAq RwAAAN1JREFUOMu1lMkVwyAMBYe0JGpCNUFNVk3k4AUwxPGS+ILxkzX8jyTH/Sfu9nrmJ3cXlnMASyWRPwd2d5XlHCBZn1BthcbRAdxTZQDI8k3mQzg11rhF+ QZ9jdNOcQib6GFQYJYgCFucSRf6GsLU6wEY5yubTFqF2yq1vRwr3INXdQUWG +je1pELX4ED1wDyRAR0WfuAA9gloITyvsFMIMgYInYRqF6rO9Sqz9qkO5ily o0o3YBwJ+6vrdQonxWUQllhXeHcb/wabMPkP2n81ocAIoLZrMqn/4y2RwP8DcQ+d6rT9ATiAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

http://www.pprune.org/ mJLR0QA/wD/AP+gvaeTAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH1QUUDyoqJjAq RwAAAN1JREFUOMu1lMkVwyAMBYe0JGpCNUFNVk3k4AUwxPGS+ILxkzX8jyTH/Sfu9nrmJ3cXlnMASyWRPwd2d5XlHCBZn1BthcbRAdxTZQDI8k3mQzg11rhF+ QZ9jdNOcQib6GFQYJYgCFucSRf6GsLU6wEY5yubTFqF2yq1vRwr3INXdQUWG +je1pELX4ED1wDyRAR0WfuAA9gloITyvsFMIMgYInYRqF6rO9Sqz9qkO5ily o0o3YBwJ+6vrdQonxWUQllhXeHcb/wabMPkP2n81ocAIoLZrMqn/4y2RwP8DcQ+d6rT9ATiAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

Well, no.

The best feature of religion is telling us how to live - in our lives today. How we treat others, the honor of our word, the care for our families and fellow humans, how to be humble, how to be tolerant, and on and on.

While I don't practice a formal religion, I was raised in one, and have my own sense of personal spirituality. Those lessons have stuck, and I respect them and those who do practice.

But all these things can be done without the need for religion, no?

under_exposed
31st Oct 2008, 09:44
The best feature of religion is telling us how to live - in our lives today. How we treat others, the honor of our word, the care for our families and fellow humans, how to be humble, how to be tolerant, and on and on.


Such as when to stone people to death and who to take as slaves?

13thDuke
31st Oct 2008, 09:49
What's the patter again, something about growing up and putting away childish things

Do you mean why be born again when you can simply grow up? :\

El Grifo
31st Oct 2008, 10:32
Taken in the spirit that think that it is being delivered, that IS funny :ok:

Why be born again when you can simply grow up . Ha !

Is that one of yours, or did you get it from somwhere ?

El G.

Capt.KAOS
31st Oct 2008, 10:42
"The truly religious man does not embrace a religion; and he who embraces one has no religion." ~ Kahlil Gibran.

13thDuke
31st Oct 2008, 11:23
Is that one of yours, or did you get it from somwhere

Can't claim the credit for that one I'm afraid. Maybe Douglas Adams?

shedhead
31st Oct 2008, 13:00
I have always considered faith and religion to be two different things.
faith is a personal belief system that you use to live your life in the way that you think is morally right.
Religion is a bunch of people telling you to live your life the way they think is right and often threatening you with death or eternal torment if you don't.
I don't have a problem with what you or any one else wishes to believe as long as you cause no harm to other people as a consequence of your beliefs and as long as you extend me the same courtesy.Sadly, religion finds that almost impossible to do hence the millions killed in the name of a peaceful and merciful god.

Fareastdriver
31st Oct 2008, 13:11
Religion is one of the oldest businesses around the world. The sales pitch from their reps is always the same.

"Keep me in clover and I promise you eternal life."

Lost man standing
31st Oct 2008, 14:53
Shedhead

Well put. This is a positive message being put out. Atheists are generally positive, happy and moral people, whatever the more fundamentalist religious people might say about them (usually followed by threats of violence, for all time on their eternal souls, just to show how nice these religious dogmatics are in contrast!).

Captain StableI. however, discarded much of the specifically sectarian stuff and kept what I regard as the central nubMy emphasis.What makes you think I pick and choose?I wonder?

ORAC
1st Nov 2008, 23:04
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.

Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.

Initial local media reports said Duhulow was 23, but her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her physical appearance.

Calls to Somali government officials and the local administration in Kismayo rang unanswered Saturday............

CityofFlight
1st Nov 2008, 23:07
Barbaric and so sad in this day and age.

Pequena_Inquieta
1st Nov 2008, 23:30
Itīs sad at any age!
It REALLY doesnīt matter if the girl was 13 ou 23...
Thatīs absurd!

Whoīs at the control of that country? Taleban?!?

My God...

El Grifo
2nd Nov 2008, 01:22
Do not worry friends it as they say "gods will"

Can I be first in line to kick "him" in the nutz.

****witz :ugh:

Edited to apply heartfelt "Fcukwitz" :ugh:

A A Gruntpuddock
2nd Nov 2008, 01:42
If someone kills anyone, but especially a child, they are normally hunted down and killed, or at least put away somewhere safe.
Why are the military able to drop bombs/ rockets, kill children and no-one even comments?

Pequena_Inquieta
2nd Nov 2008, 02:19
Do not worry friends it as they say "gods will"

Itīs NOT Godīs will, even though they say it is.

And donīt generalize! Youīd be making a mistake just like those who do awful things wrongly in the name of God!

"[...] Cursed is the one who trusts in man [...]"
Jeremiah 17:5

Why are the military able to drop bombs/ rockets, kill children and no-one even comments?
Come to Brazil and stay for a while. Iīm shure youīll change your mind about that! :ok:

El Grifo
2nd Nov 2008, 11:51
Desculpa Pequena, it was suppose to be irony.

"They" appear to want it both ways in that particular religion.

Everything that happens, happens as a result of the will of "god"

When a terrible disaster occurs, they weep and wail and beat their chests.

But if everything is god's will, should they not celebrate instead his tangible work.

Or alternatively take their anger out on the heartless and cruel "god"

One of the most screwed up, intolerant religions around

frostbite
2nd Nov 2008, 12:49
Meanwhile, as in the World Wars, Bishops on both sides 'bless' the tanks before deployment.

Lon More
2nd Nov 2008, 13:21
If we are created in God's image then he's got a fcuking strange sense of humour.

Belgian news yesterday - 35 year old raped a 99 year old woman:ugh:

tony draper
2nd Nov 2008, 13:30
Hmmm, tiz difficult not to believe, if believe you indeed do, that it is Satan not God who holds sway over mankind.
Seems to me that good and evil are not equally distributed among our species.
:)

Pequena_Inquieta
2nd Nov 2008, 14:03
One of the most screwed up, intolerant religions around
Actually, El Grifo, I donīt think the religion itself is intolerant.
If you go deeper into studying each religion youīll find that they all have something good to be taken out of. Even Islam.

The human being is born with a heart that is both evil and kind. Itīs up to each one to decide which one they want to "follow".
Fortunately some people let the goodness stick out.

Some muslims are radicals because they understand their sacred book in a way they can justify their evil acts, caused by the evil they choose to follow.
That happens because, as we all know, itīs much easier to do bad stuff than good stuff. But thatīs in any religion, in any part of the world, in any culture.

I donīt like to generalize.
Iīm not muslim and I donīt agree with the religion 100%, but I donīt think they are all bad because of the mistakes of minority.
Those radical groups blot out the ones that actually do no harm at all.
Again... thatīs in any religion, in any part of the world, in any culture.

Beijinhos

P.S. Hyprocrisy is also something we are born with. Itīs up to us to decide what to do about it.

Flame Lily FX
2nd Nov 2008, 14:16
Ludovic Kennedy (All In The Mind - A Farewell To God) - 'Intelligent Christians must know that prayers go unanswered. If it were otherwise, every non-believer in the land would convert to Christianity tomorrow. Why then do Christians continue to pray?'.

:hmm:

Pequena_Inquieta
2nd Nov 2008, 15:20
Ludovic Kennedy (All In The Mind - A Farewell To God) - 'Intelligent Christians must know that prayers go unanswered. If it were otherwise, every non-believer in the land would convert to Christianity tomorrow. Why then do Christians continue to pray?'.

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."

James 4:1-6

Answered? :ok:

Flame Lily FX
2nd Nov 2008, 15:40
James 4:1-6...Answered?:ok:


David Jenkins, former Bishop of Durham . ' Nothing in the New Testament can be regarded as certain.'

So...that's a No!:p

Davaar
2nd Nov 2008, 15:49
............ and is it certain that Global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels? If yes, on what authority? If no, then is that too untrue?

Flame Lily FX
2nd Nov 2008, 15:54
Shelly. 'Reasonable people do not require religious belief. Christianity is unreasonable and incredible.'

:hmm:

BDiONU
2nd Nov 2008, 16:25
The best theology would need no advocates; it would prove itself.
Barth, Karl


So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?
-Stephen W. Hawking (A Brief History of Time)

BD

Captain Stable
2nd Nov 2008, 16:52
Shelly. 'Reasonable people do not require religious belief. Christianity is unreasonable and incredible.'"The reasonable man adapts himself to his surroundings; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt his surroundings to him. Therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw.

dazdaz
2nd Nov 2008, 16:54
Going further back in time and space..Who created the creator?

Pequena_Inquieta
2nd Nov 2008, 17:19
1
Going further back in time and space..Who created the creator?

2They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.
Romans 1:25



1 - Going further back in time and space.. Who created Big Bang?
If you keep thinking like that youīll probably end up in a mental hospital.

2- We shouldnīt try to understand God, otherwise He woudnīt be GOD.
Can the creature understand itīs creator?

dazdaz
2nd Nov 2008, 17:31
"1 - Going further back in time and space.. Who created Big Bang?" Maybe God or his creator or the creator of creator? Where does it end? Romans; I'm not a reader of history books.

Pequena_Inquieta
2nd Nov 2008, 17:46
Actually, dazdaz, I was being ironic.
I donīt believe in Big Bang. I was just trying to show you that believing in God wonīt do you any harm, unlike believing in theories that probably will drive you crazy, because youīll NEVER find concrete answers to origins of Earth. Youīll always have to try to discover what came before, and before, and... BEFORE!

Sooooo... I prefer to believe in the Creator.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:1

charliegolf
2nd Nov 2008, 18:06
youīll NEVER find concrete answers to origins of Earth

You will eventually, if there is a God. You'll be able to ask.

CG

dazdaz
2nd Nov 2008, 18:06
I take it then your a member of the 'creationist' lobby? I.E. The earth is only 5k years old. Apologies if I'm wrong. Just a thought.

Respects, Daz

Flame Lily FX
2nd Nov 2008, 18:23
Captain Stable

I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence. - Doug McLeod

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. - Anonymous

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams

:hmm:

shedhead
2nd Nov 2008, 18:40
Given that in the entire history of the human race we have had hundreds (if not thousands) of gods, which one should we believe in? why that particular one and not one of the others? how can you be sure you are right?
I choose not to believe in any. I think that we now understand that the universe can exist without any supernatural intervention and the time for belief in that sort of thing is now over. why should we give any more credence to christianity,islam or any other modern religion than we would to the greek or roman gods? would we tolerate people being thrown into volcanoes to appease some primitive volcano god? I doubt it.but we still tolerate the barbaric practises of the more mainstream religions. As I have said I have no problem with anyones private beliefs, it's only when people insist that we all must comply with the laws of that belief that I object. I also object to those who,with no concrete evidence,try to gainsay sound scientific theory purely because it contradicts the accepted teachings of their religion.

Gnirren
2nd Nov 2008, 18:49
Agree. I'm still waiting for someone to define religion to me so that I can start my own. With tax-free perks of course. What makes Christianity a religion?

Also for my freshly minted religion I'll be marrying people, how do I go about getting these marriages acknowledged by the state? I mean christian churches do this all the time so what gives them the right to monopoly? So I'd say until Christians can prove their God is the "right one" my God should enjoy the same legal benefits.

Oh and.. I don't have to prove my God is real either. It's a "faith based issue" you see ;)

Flame Lily FX
2nd Nov 2008, 19:10
A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Nietzsche

:p

dazdaz
2nd Nov 2008, 19:25
Nice one flame.:ok:

dazdaz
2nd Nov 2008, 19:38
I shall return tomorrow, religion and the Muslim influence of the British way of life.

Davaar
2nd Nov 2008, 19:56
Nice one flame

Nice one indeed, dazdaz, for Nietzsche, poor fellow, was well placed to speak with authority on the topic:

(a) Psychotic breakdown in 1889, at the age of 44 years, admitted to the Basel mental asylum;
(b) 18 January 1889 transferred to the Jena mental asylum in demented darkness until his death on 25 August 1900;
(c) In Basel, diagnosed as suffering from general paralysis of the insane (tertiary cerebral syphilis);
(d) Diagnosis in (c) confirmed in Jena and still widely accepted.

Not that it proves anything one way or the other.