Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.

kylith wrote: »

The everyday Catholic on the street may not be but have you had a look at the abortion debate? The RCC threatening politicians with excommunication unless they vote in line with RCC ideology, priest preaching anti-choice from the pulpits, Catholic lobby groups harassing politicians in their homes, Christian fundamentalists sending politicians death threats. Globally; the RCC spreading the lie that HIV does not cause AIDS in Africa. What are these if not examples of people trying to enforce Roman Catholic ideals and morality on others by intimidation, misinformation, and downright lies, and all backed up by 'God says so, it's in the bible'? So don't try to tell me that no-one is trying to force biblical morality and ideals on those of us who have no interest in following Christian doctrine, because to say that would either be a blatant lie or outright stupidity.

Sorry I fail to see your point?
What exactly are you suggesting or is this just a rant?

Sarky wrote: »

Yup, BSc in marine science, good guess. And then I did a HDip in microbiology. Followed by an MSc in bioinformatics/systems biology. I'm half way through my second paid research contract since my last degree, and currently looking at either more research work or a PhD early next year. Learning is fun!


I wouldn't want to. I have better qualified communities to represent.



Feel free to debate with Bannasidhe, then. Unless you want to move those goalposts a bit more first?

Move the goal posts?
Have you actually made a point?.. Or said anything.

Few things I just want to reiterate.
I am not a Christian, I would consider myself ignostic. I look at the bible and I see two distinct sets of arguments...
Those who take the bible as the unfallible word of god and those who look at it in the same manner realising how insane this must be therefore discrediting the whole thing.

The arguments for discrediting the bible I find almost as laughable as the arguments made to support it....

The point I am making is nothing here can be proven but equally disproved.

You want to simply state, "you are wrong, I am a scientist" as if this actually holds any weight? Or am I wrong?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The arguments for discrediting the bible I find almost as laughable as the arguments made to support it....

Given then that you don't believe in the bible, what is your argument for discrediting it? Is it as laughable as any other? Why not?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The point I am making is nothing here can be proven but equally disproved.

I assume you are talking about the religious vs scientific explanation for the origin of the universe? How can they be equally disproved?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

an Atheist is someone that holds the belief that no God exists.

I know a lot has happened since this comment, but this (vaguely on topic) is one of the questions / misconceptions that annoys me.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe a god exists, not someone who believes a god doesn't exist. There's a huge difference.

You label yourself as "ignostic", this means that you don't believe in a god. Congratulations, you're an atheist.

Everybody in the world is either agnostic or lying, as nobody knows whether one exists or doesn't.

doctoremma wrote: »

Nobody has to bother disproving scientific "theories" when they don't have any evidence to support even the creation of the "hypotheses". If there is no evidence to support the creation of a hypothesis, then it is indistinguishable from "makey uppy".

The bible again is not a scientific book, it is a number historical artifacts.
The idea that it is "makey uppy" is like saying there is nothing credible in any of the books of the bible... Nothing it all, just like brothers Grimm all fictional...

What proof do you have this is the case?

Sofaspud wrote: »

By historical artifacts, you seem to mean folk tales which may or may not be vaguely related to actual events.

Possibly but no more so than any artifact of a similar age.

daddyorchips wrote: »

I dont believe in god big deal why do people care so much priests are pedophiles so the catholic church should be abolished the new pope is most likely a pedophile and so will be the next pope

......,,,,,

Here you go. I'd a few spare ones lying around. Instructions for their use are available elsewhere.

"Why do you hate God so much?"

Sycopat wrote: »

"Our website uses cookies. Do you have a problem with that?"


:rolleyes:

What kind of cookies?

Here we go again...

I just got some chewy orange and chocolate chip cookies. They're goooooood.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The bible again is not a scientific book, it is a number historical artifacts.
The idea that it is "makey uppy" is like saying there is nothing credible in any of the books of the bible... Nothing it all, just like brothers Grimm all fictional...

What proof do you have this is the case?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me to prove that there is nothing of any credibility in the Bible? That's not my job. It is the job of those asserting Biblical 'truths' to prove the credibility of such 'truths'. Until there is proof to support the story, it is indistinguishable from 'makey uppy'. It is illogical to ask for proof that it is 'makey uppy'. How could I go about that?

It mirrors the scientific process - say something is so and show your working. This is what caught my attention earlier (and others) - your rather jumbled usage of 'theories' and 'proving' or 'disproving' them.

I suspect there are many credible stories in the Bible - peoples, lands, kings, etc. (I say 'suspect' because history is my least favourite subject). I know there are many discredited stories in the Bible - Genesis, global floods, etc. If they are only proposed as a series of historical documents, I wouldn't be bothered. But they aren't, are they? These stories are proposed to reveal the actions and word of an inerrant God. You only need one of the stories to be proposed as truth then entirely discredited before that position has to change.

BTW, I am eating Millionaire's shortbread.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Plus this term 'historical artifact' really just means it is old. In the case of the various books in the Bible we have no way of knowing how old or whether they are contemporary with the events they describe so essentially they are a collection of laws and folk tales from one particular group of people who happened to be literate.
Their age does not confer any status upon them other than 'old' - it certainly does not lend them credibility. After all - the Greeks also wrote down their laws and told us all about their Gods. The difference is the Greeks never claimed these written words were the words of the Gods themselves.

In short Ancient document does not = truth.

Ah sure if humanity progress over the next couple of thousand years, they won't believe the **** that went on this century either ;-)

People worshipping djs, celeb's,labels,writers,superficial bull****....

To me modern day celeb worship is just as mad as worshiping carved stone and wood....