Religion is Bullsh*t, Get over it, and support science.

The thing is, thought there are many different options, one should have faith and choose the right one. I obviously think my religion, Catholicism, is the correct one, but I could be wrong, it could be any one of them. You have to have the faith and courage to make a decision and stand by it.

 

No thanks.

It may or may not surprise you that I choose to believe there is a God. Dunno why, never bothered analysing it.

What I can't be bothered with is all the religious bollocks made up by men to control other men.

 

or you could take the view that there isnt a god, and the only "purpose" of our lives is to make babies and carry on the species

 

im a biologist, i dont understand these scientists who are religious, too many conflicting ideas.

 

I can confirm that yes......religion is indeed bullshit.

If you disagree with it please make an appeal and provide evidence to support your fairytale...sorry....claim.

 

You said you didnt even look at the material, just the link, so yer talkin oot yer arse

 

I wasn't using Wikipedia as a source of information, SNIAW.
I was using it to illustrate the manuscripts that the piece from the Guardian was referring to, as you didn't seem to have heard of them or didn't make the connection, I'm not sure which.
Obviously Wikipedia is often inaccurate, as it's edited by pretty much anyone.

If I'd have used a different website, then it would probably have had a bias towards one side or the other.

 

It wasn't an intelligent debate because you didn't think about a single point that was raised.
There were some glaring errors in the thinking behind some of the things that you put forward, but you just repeated what other people thought about the issues, without a glimmer of original thought.
You basically admit as much.

Puin's claims are about something solid that doesn't need interpretation.
Either the manuscripts match up or they don't.
Neither of us can examine his evidence, but we can examine Moore's.

Would you prefer 'stating beliefs'?
Feel free to actually ask me what you want to know.
What subjects would you like me to clarify my beliefs about?
Again, you've asked for something solid and for me to state my beliefs, without clarifying about what.
I've asked you the same thing repeatedly for about 5 posts in a row now, yet you don't answer and instead you accuse me of dodging the question.

 

And it requires sources, which you can check, both for their validity and their bias.
The idea wasn't to accept blindly whatever it says on Wikipedia, just to use it as a point of reference, so you knew the manuscripts that were being referred to and could check out the claims yourself.
Anything else that I'd link to would be leapt upon by our mutual friend.

 

I suggest you DONT get involved

You chose to quote me then didnt read what i wrote. I was talking about Islam. and particularly stated that i dont believe the NT as in New Testament.

from what you have written i would suggest it is not just Islam you lack knowledge in

 

that response was specifically in light of the questioning whether muhammad existed. and YES he did. I never suggested yoiu 'believe' the stories about him or not.

scietology is real as in its there and it has a structure, you may disagree with it and believe it to be bubbles but it 'exists' in that it has followerss etc

 

you can try and twist it anyway you like, i am afraid. I have yet to see what these 'glaring' errors were. feel free to point them out. I dont 'admit' to anything, you assume

Puin's claims are solid? not the way you have interpreted them. He himself clearly goes against what you are asserting/implying. see above. The manuscripts do match up, again see above. and yes we can examine his evidence, again see above.

I would argue moores is harder to examine as neither of has his level of knowledge on embroyology. I probably have more knowledge of arabic and the quran than Puin in certain aspects. However there is no point deflecting etc here Puin himself disagrees with you. where as Moore agrees with me

the question i pose to you is simple, what DO you believe? It has been clarified, yet again you avoid

I believe in Allah, his creations, the heavens and earths, his angels, his books, what do you believe?

 

Could you try actually reading what I've written, please?
I don't think that my posts on here are particularly unclear, but you seem to read things into them that simply aren't there.

I didn't say that Puin's claims are solid.
I said that he's making claims about something solid.
The manuscripts are real, physical objects, yes?

You still don't understand what an argument from authority fallacy is, do you?
Look it up.
Puin's claims can be examined.
Moore's claims are subjective, as he's working from vague, poetic verses that have been translated at least twice before they reach him.

You haven't clarified anything, yet again.
'What do you believe?' is an awful question.
Would you like to narrow it down a little?

I'll give it a go anyway, as you'll only make excuses and misunderstand if I don't.

I don't believe in anything supernatural.
I don't believe in any god.
I don't believe in heaven, hell or purgatory.
I see each religion in the way that you probably view the Norse or Roman pantheon.

How did the universe form?
The Big Bang is the best theory that we have so far, as far as I can see.
It's far from perfect, but it's the most likely explanation that we have.

How did life start?
Abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation that I've heard so far.

Did you watch the clip on evolution that I posted, by the way?
I'm going to guess no, which would back up my point about your lack of interest in a real debate.

 

my bad, I did misunderstand what you said re Puin. Yes the manuscripts are solid. His claims however have no basis and certainly dont support your insinuations.
His claims have been examined, by himself and dont support what i believe you were insinuating, as i proved above
Moore's claims CAN be examined, and have been examined, look it up

I kind of knew what you didnt believe, and said as much. But thanks for clarifying

As mentioned earlier I accept the Big Bang theory, the quran mentioned it 1400 years ago and science started to investigate and prove it from the 1900's

as for Abiogenesis - Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

I find it quite hypocritical that atheists rag on the theists all day every day because they believe in something that is impossible to prove... All the while the Atheist himself believes in something not only IMPOSSIBLE to prove but science believes CANNOT have happened

If science is the yardstick, then it backs up my religious beliefs, no matter how 'vague' or 'interpreted' you may assert, than your notions which it categorically states cannot and did not happen.

as i say you are not athiest as in no god, but athiest as in anti god

 

As for Authority Fallacy, I thought i would address this seperately

in a nutshell this is basically that a claim is correct because the claim has been made by somebody who is authoritative/in authourity

correct me if i am wrong but are you not doing this?

only difference being you are manipulating the 'authority' to suit. eg Puin and Moore

I have used Puin to prove your assertions wrong

I have yet to see you provide what Moore said, and disprove it.

 

Here we go with the strawmen, again.
You've still yet to answer how I can be anti- something that I don't believe exists.
It doesn't make any sense.
You've been told this by somebody and you cannot accept dissenting opinion.

Science clearly doesn't back your beliefs or most scientists would be Muslims and most scientific advances would have taken place in the Islamic world, as they'd have had a massive advantage over everyone else, wouldn't they?

Your claims that science says that abiogenesis is impossible is absolutely ludicrous.
If that were true, then why are teams of reputable scientists researching it?
It's funny that you've suggest that Clay Theory is acceptable though, despite being taken far less seriously by the scientific community, because there's some way to vaguely tie it into your beliefs.
No bias there, then!

The passage in the Quran that you say speaks about the Big Bang doesn't say anything of the sort, to me.
Why didn't Muslim scientists find out about it before everyone else, if it's clear and concise?

 

You've missed at least one step out and there's a clear reason why it doesn't apply to Puin, whose opinion you've totally misrepresented.

The simple form of the argument from authority (not the fallacy) is that an expert on a subject makes a claim about that subject and his peers agree with that claim.
The fallacy is where one of those factors is missing.

In Moore's case, it doesn't appear that his fellow embryologists have embraced Islam, does it?
That would suggest a lack of consensus in the field.
Thus the fallacy.

With Puin, who claims that the manuscripts contain inconsistencies, there can be no consensus, as people aren't allowed to study the manuscripts any more.
Why would that be?
Only Graf Von Bothmer would appear to be in a position to clear things up and he seems to agree with Puin.

Moore is suggesting that a poetic verse, that's been translated at least twice before it's reached him, contains divine knowledge of human embryology.
His peers don't seem to agree and having read the surah, neither do I.
As it's unclear, vague and open to interpretation, it's not proof, by any means.