Do you believe......

haunted-room wrote:

I am not an athiest as I was brought up catholic but I dont believe in god.

Er.. Ah... What...

Go find the spoon. It holds all the answers.

haunted-room wrote:

ughh! read the post above yours:mad:

Ugh!!! No. Can't read. Not able, my God forbids it at the weekends.


5 pages of God:Yes or No in AH. Meh.
Looked at the first post and quoted.

On topic.
Personaly, I don't believe in any religion.

InFront wrote:

Everybody has to have an opinion or nothing would get done. The attitude is not "why bother" with science, it is wariness of science, awareness that science cannot answer everything (things as small as Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle). There is a mystery to the world that science does not envelope or engage with.

Yes. The reason the science of man has advance so far is its pursuit to remove this mystery. We wouldn't be here, typing on these computers over the internet if we were satisfied in this 'mystery'. 'How is lightening formed?' 'God did it'. Yes, praise the mystery of God.

Right. So how do we know that the current evidence is correct? I think it is, but to be honest, the I would have said that about the ether if I lived in 1900 too!

And? I'm not saying science is always right. In fact I'd say the opposite, we still have a long way to go, especially in the fields of quantum mechanics, astronomy, genetics and the creation of the universe.

This is incorrect, it is very very basic mathematics. If there are no scientific laws before the big bang, no mathematics and no physics, no relativity, no space-time, only a dimesnion of unrule where matter does exist, you cannot say that any potential modern theory carries more weight than another in that scientific anarchy.

How is it 'very, very' basic maths if there is no maths? Which is it? Either you can apply the logic of probability or you can't.

There are no scientific reasons to support any theories whatsoever in that independent, unrecognizable universe/ infinite dot. Yet science must have existed, therfore, no theory overrules another in that era. Allah? Quantum mechanics? Who knows?

Exactly we don't know. However just because there are two options doesn't mean the odds are equal, they are only equal if they both have an equal chance of occurring, like the flip of coin. Since there can only be one start, a creator or no creator, the odds aren't 50/50. We are only attributing an equally likelihood because they are the only two answers we can come up with. In fact there are no odds, the answer just simply is.

Are the odds 50/50 that there is an invisible unicorn behind me? No. This is the exact same. Either there is or there isn't. But there isn't an equal chance of either.

All this nonsense of we don't know the answer so any argument is moot is rather frustrating. Engage the debate or don't. Don't try and de-rail with the failings of science, no one is trying to deny them.

All your arguments are seeking to do is find the holes of science, maths or logic and then hide away religion and faith in them. Science are constantly closing the area religion and faith can hide away.

Its moving from appearance from the sun ,to mans' genesis, to the big bang etc., ad nauseum. Everytime science explains it religion latches onto something else.

DaveMcG wrote:

I'll agree there! I was practically knashing my teeth as I was reading InFront's post.

So all the rest of my points are wrong?

InFront wrote:

If you wish to take mathematics out of it, lets do so. So there is no probability of anything being present before the big bang apart from our friend the dot. The big bang happened. Something triggered it. What caused the trigger? No rules remember, we can suggest anything we wish. Science has no special claims in this instance. Scientists know as much as the birds in the sky about what was around before the big bang. See how the universe is a mystery?
Being unproven doesn't make religion right, neither does it make science right. Speculation is King.

Its irrelevant if there are no laws before the big bang. Tbh you could attribute the name of God to whatever started the universe, from an alien race to a collapsing universe to a deity. Your arguement of we can't know what started has no bearing on religion because all religions speak of God influencing the world we *currently* live in, where there are laws of physics. The problem science has with a God is when he created the universe, imposed these laws and then started influencing man and making himself known around 2000 years ago or 1000 in the case of Allah (although they're both the same afaik). Maybe 'Allah' did start the universe but he didn't start spreading his word to man and start performing miracles.

Basically my point is, no science doesn't know what started the universe (and we're ok with that) but we can measure what occurs once that it has started. If you want to push the definition of Allah to what started it all thats fine, its unprovable. You can call anything God if you want, even this keyboard I type on. However you're forgetting everything Allah has claimed to do since.

the Shades wrote:

For all the people who believe in science: how does a bee fly since it's wing span and body mass completely defy the laws of physics?

Yes, bees clearly defy the law of physics.

Copy and past job:

It is obvious to any scientist that the bumble bee can fly as experiment proves it. So what is this business about proving bees cannot fly? And who started it?

First let's look at the physics behind the story. If you are asked about flight the first thing you do is to use the equations which describe how much lift an object has. You compare the lift to the weight of the object. If the lift is greater than weight then the thing can fly. Bumble bees are pretty big, weighing almost a gram, and have a wing area of about a square centimetre. Tot up all the figures and you find that it cannot generate enough lift at its typical flying speed of about one meter per second. But that doesn't prove bees cannot fly. It proves that bees with smooth, rigid wings cannot glide. Experiment has proven this too. With the aid of dead bees and a little lacquer it is easy to show that they really cannot glide.

So how do they fly? Actually that turns out to be a very interesting question and one that reveals a lot of physics. Why do bees flap while jumbo jets have fixed wings? It is a question of size and this is revealed in a figure called the Reynolds Number. Osborne Reynolds was a Victorian engineer who was interested in what happens when you place an object in a stream of liquid or gas. The number named after him is a ratio which tells us, for a particular object, how much lift you get compared to how much drag or resistance you get. A low Reynolds number means little lift for a lot of drag and a large Reynolds number means a lot of lift.

The Reynolds Number depends on the size of the wing. Bigger wings give bigger Reynolds numbers. Now if, again, you put in all the numbers you find that bees work at very low Reynolds Numbers (1000 or so for a honeybee, as little as 15 for the aphid-eating chalcid wasp). This means that their flight is very inefficient because as a wing starts to move to create lift the drag holds it back. It is fairly straightforward to show that birds can generate enough lift to fly once they are in motion with air flowing smoothly over their wings, but many of them would have great difficulty taking off. Small insects, according to this model, cannot fly at all. Of course, all this proves is that the model is incomplete.

Some brilliant work by Torkel Weis-Fogh has shown us how small insects do fly and it has led to some rather neat insights into nature's cunning. If you are small and want to fly you have a problem. The Reynolds Number is against you so you cannot glide and flapping is very hard work. A wing is a device which encourages the air to flow over it so that when it leaves the rear wing edge, the air moves downwards. That produces a thrust upwards on the wing. A smoke-filled wind tunnel shows this beautifully with curling eddies of smoke flicking off the wing edges. Unfortunately to make a good eddy takes time. The wing has to move a few times its own length to get things started. This makes it tricky if you are going to flap as the maximum travel of a wing is about its own length and very little lift is generated for most of the stroke. Nature has come up with a number of interesting solutions to this problem of which the "clap-fling" is a good example. When a small bird or insect wants to take off it needs a lot of lift. What it does is bring its wings together above its back so they clap, expelling air from between them. As the wings are separated, air is drawn quickly in to fill the void. The wings are flung apart and lift is generated immediately as the air is already in motion in the correct way. You can hear the clap. The characteristic whirring of a pheasant taking off is caused by its wings clapping. Almost 2000 years ago Virgil recorded in The Aeneid that a rock dove claps its wings as it takes off - a passage he stole from Homer but he added the bit about the clapping.

So in asking how bees fly we find that they are remarkably clever about it. Aircraft can generate enough lift that they do not need such tricks, but they do need long runways. Birds get enough lift to fly but for take-off need a boost. Just the poor old bee and about a million different species of winged insect need some extra trickery to stay aloft.

But how did it all start? Where does the story date back to? J.H.Mcmasters states that the story was prevalent in the German technical universities in the 1930's, starting with the students of the aerodynamicist Ludwig Prandtl at Göttingen. The story he tells is that a noted Swiss aerodynamicist, whom he does not name, was talking to a biologist at dinner. The biologist asked about the flight of bees and the Swiss gentleman did a back-of-the-napkin calculation of the kind I described. Assume a rigid, smooth wing and so on. Of course, he found that there was insufficient lift and went away to find out the correct answer. In the meantime the biologist put the word around, presumably to show that nature was greater than engineering, and the media picked it up. The truth, as now, wasn't newsworthy so a correction has never been publicised. The man on the Clapham omnibus, therefore, continues to tell me that science is a load of crock because it once proved that bumble bees cannot fly.

4Xcut wrote:

moron
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

you are by no means alone, your's was just one of the many examples of ignorence prevalent in any religious debate in ireland today.

sorry about the double post.

Screw you buddy. Don't point me at a dictionary to tell me what my beliefs are. I don't believe in a God but I believe in something. The ability to think for myself hardly makes me a moron does it?

There is no fefuting science, its fact, however it doen not have to be mutually exclusive to religious idea's.

Of course there is fefuting science. Science is another branch of philosophy and is just as fefutable as religion, they are 2 sides of the same coin. I just choose to believe in science over religion because it is based on what appears to humankind as hard facts.

Care to fefute that?

monkeyfudge wrote:

I find the idea of an afterlife repulsive. To go for all eternity in a place that makes no sense when you get down to the logistics of it.

If your wife dies and you re-marry, won't it be awkward in this after life?
What about if you're really old and senile when you die? Do you stay that way in heaven, and if you get to be a younger more lucid version of yourself, then how is that determined?

Life is finite, make the most of it while you have it.

Another is considering the size of the univerce that we live in there is almost defiantly another form of life out there so what does it/they get into heaven did god create them aswell?

Also why would god create the univerce? why something so big for just us which is what allot of people seem to think

Killaqueen!!! wrote:

I'm too young to be questioning my faith...it's not fair I want to be a good Christian but I'm just so confused...

You can be a good person without all that religion stuff

faceman wrote:

God didnt start, He just was

Sangre wrote:

Then why can't the 'big bang' just be as well? Why does someone have to start it?

Thats a good come back ive was having disagreements with priests in my school for about 12 years or so, happy to say that i was the first person in my year to oppose and disagree with the religious teachings of my school.

But i never thought of just saying that when they asked me to explain the big bang.... actually i am relay enjoying this i haven't had a good religious debate since i left school

Ok....
Where to start....

Ok man evolved a long long time ago right? cave men and such so countless millions and more of our own species (god own creation) died over the 1000`s of years until jebus came along? - Sopunds to me like god is an asshole
(i do not belive in all this heaven and hell stuff but it is he sure is a bastard)

I mean even the most stupid aggressive primitive human knows that if someone ****s you over and then they die you don't go and try to kill every single other family member?

according to the whole god thing Adam eve gardin don't go near the tree ect and what happened again an apple wasent it? ye it was i like family guys version better - gods stash of pornos was behind the tree.

My point is those two ****ed up and this supposedly great creator spends the next couple of thousand years sending all the decedents of those that wronged him to hell. Does not sounds like a good being to me.

There are people that i hate and if i don't get revenge on them i wont go after there kids or grandchildren everyone knows this but god does not?
bollox

Also i dont get the concept of hell...

Is the devil not supposed to be a fallen angel? one who challenged god and was cast out? i think im right about that one

Well anyway so you don't lead a good life and you go to hell where you are punished in hell for all eternity?

i don't think that makes sense because the only way to get to hell is to defy god and this mortal enemy of god is supposed to punish you because you didn't do what his mortal enemy wanted?
again bollox if there is a hell it is simply another state of being. you would not be punished for opposing god.

Aliens and god, like i said earlier why would god create something so big just for us? there must be another form of life somewhere, one ider (yes ider) that i dont hear often is the possibility that maybe we are actually the first intelligent (if you could call us that) first intelligent species to evolve in the Verce.

Ok another big issue, religions best weapon - brainwashing

a huge amount of people are conditioned from childhood about religion - a huge amount! and then those parents in turn (most of them anyway) will condition there own children. Remember the control the church used to have over schools? more brainwashing.

and then you know straight away if you start telling your baby/child from a young age that Satan is lord the church might have a problem with it yes they would even tho it is what they do themselves.

Ok on to crazy fundamentalist religious beliefs, its the same brainwashing taking advantage of undereducated people. If you die taking out an infendel (suicide bombings) you will get 100 beautiful virgins in hevan and life forever in happiness.

Ok last issue one of my magtes will be down in 5 mins i gtg get dressed and ****

Big bang yo have all discussed this and many times ask how did the big bang happen - science cant prove it - there must be a god?...... Think about that for a second
...
...
...
...

Right so because science cant explain something it means god? look at the amount of religious shight that science has dis-proven in the last 50 years, it will only be a matter of time before we know more. We already have good theory on the big bang.

The Verse is ever expanding, this is caused by the energy still left over from the big bang, when that energy runs out or when the Verse reaches a certain mass it will collapse in on itself the entire Verse collapsing into one point in space, imagine that all the energy of the whole Verse converging at one point in space - that is more than enough energy to fuel another big bang, hence another posters comment about Earth Version 10.6 this big event has happened in the past and the verse simply re-creates itself.

Then ofcoarse you have religious people saying god created the first Verse and all that, one day science will prove relgion wrong i hope,

As it is religion is dying off in several generations religion will be limited in the develped world and it in several generations hopefully there will be a good deal of doubt in the middle each countries and in time a long time religion will be gone - we can only hope

It has caused so many wars deaths and pain all because some people cant cope with the ider (yes ider) of not seeing there loved ones again...

k i gtg my mate is here.

The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses two points. "A) It has beer volcanos as far as the eye can see & It has a stripper factory."

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendage


However, I am an atheist

Steyr wrote:

I believe in God/Heaven as if you look at the world how can so many Nations/people have all thought about Worshipping the same type of thing no matter what kind of religion they all believe in a "GOD"...

If anything that is one of the biggest arguements against religion. Through-out the ages man has always sought something or someone to worship, from the sun God Helios, to Thor the god of Thunder, to the Hindi Gods. To suggest all these come from the one 'true' God would be an insult to the diversity of mono and pantheistic religions. I hardly think the Shaman can compare to the Pope in his beliefs or practices. In all the religions that ever existed, I find it odd that people always think theirs is the one, true right one to the exclusion of all others. This is especially perplexing when they happened to born into the religion and haven't discovered the truth from outside teachings.

Religion in all diversity only highlights the complexity of man, his imaginatino and his innate need to feel he has a purpose.

To be honest though i think nobody knows whats going on as there is too much unexplained stuff out there such as Ghosts, NDE's, posessions...i can go on...the mind boggles.

None of which have ever been shown to happen beyond 3rd party accounts and vague stories.