question for athiests

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Please not Poll for there to have been walls there would need to have been foundations. No foundations, no walls.

SAF dried my hair I asked that question already. I'm still waiting for that to be answered myself.
 
Oh Christ (if you’ll pardon the expression), it’s another “science hasn’t explained every yet, ergo God did it, and even if it does explain everything we’ll still need sky gods to make life worthwhile” argument.

What peeves me with these types is the attempt to pretend there is some kind of parity between the creation myths of the bronze age middle east and the modern scientific account of the origins of life and the universe, the corollary being "they're two sides of the same coin and religion is just as valid a tool for understanding the universe as science is

Incidentally, as creation myths go, genesis as is (I assume the op is a christion yec – I really can’t be bothered with the entire thread) must rank as one of the least inspired and most facile. It's basically guy sits down and makes lots of things, whole tree of knowledge fiasco, occasional hissy fits from creator and much throwing of toys out of pram. Compare Plato's majestic arching together of the spheres of the same and the different (secular myths are uninspiring and lacking profundity my arse), or the daunting expression of unleashed power in the traditional Greek Gigantomachy, or the stately descent from heaven of the regal Urania in Bernardus Sylvestris' Cosmographia. Compare the haunting beauty of Tolkien's Ainulindalae or the comedic theatrics of the Saiyuki. The genesis story, in contrast, had to wait for John Milton to inject some awe and majesty into it from the classical epic tradition before it became halfway inspiring.

As for “what can anything offer to replace religion”, why is there even an issue of whether people can lead good, moral, fulfilled, happy and interesting lives without believing in the mad rubbish of religion. This is not an abstract issue where the evidence could go either way. Millions of people already ARE leading such lives, which demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is it possible, it is actually very easy

Also, this stuff about finding formal secular "alternatives" to religious ritual and community is just more nonsense. That's like saying we needed to find an alternative to smallpox or slavery when we got rid of those. People gather together in communities anyway. People find meaning and comfort and significance in all sorts of ways. They see their friends. They go out for the evening. They give to charity. They go to the pub. We don't need formal, centralised bodies for these things, and we certainly don't need telling that we do.
 
Oh Christ (if you’ll pardon the expression), it’s another “science hasn’t explained every yet, ergo God did it, and even if it does explain everything we’ll still need sky gods to make life worthwhile” argument.

What peeves me with these types is the attempt to pretend there is some kind of parity between the creation myths of the bronze age middle east and the modern scientific account of the origins of life and the universe, the corollary being "they're two sides of the same coin and religion is just as valid a tool for understanding the universe as science is

Incidentally, as creation myths go, genesis as is (I assume the op is a christion yec – I really can’t be bothered with the entire thread) must rank as one of the least inspired and most facile. It's basically guy sits down and makes lots of things, whole tree of knowledge fiasco, occasional hissy fits from creator and much throwing of toys out of pram. Compare Plato's majestic arching together of the spheres of the same and the different (secular myths are uninspiring and lacking profundity my arse), or the daunting expression of unleashed power in the traditional Greek Gigantomachy, or the stately descent from heaven of the regal Urania in Bernardus Sylvestris' Cosmographia. Compare the haunting beauty of Tolkien's Ainulindalae or the comedic theatrics of the Saiyuki. The genesis story, in contrast, had to wait for John Milton to inject some awe and majesty into it from the classical epic tradition before it became halfway inspiring.

As for “what can anything offer to replace religion”, why is there even an issue of whether people can lead good, moral, fulfilled, happy and interesting lives without believing in the mad rubbish of religion. This is not an abstract issue where the evidence could go either way. Millions of people already ARE leading such lives, which demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is it possible, it is actually very easy

Also, this stuff about finding formal secular "alternatives" to religious ritual and community is just more nonsense. That's like saying we needed to find an alternative to smallpox or slavery when we got rid of those. People gather together in communities anyway. People find meaning and comfort and significance in all sorts of ways. They see their friends. They go out for the evening. They give to charity. They go to the pub. We don't need formal, centralised bodies for these things, and we certainly don't need telling that we do.

Jonah J you are a very wise man indeed....:emoticon-0137-clapp:emoticon-0171-star::emoticon-0171-star::emoticon-0171-star::emoticon-0171-star::emoticon-0171-star:
 
wow is this still going?

I bet no athiest has put forward any 'theory' for the origins of the world

I see the ususal 'prove' god exists and the usual 'christian' arguments are being discussed. As well as the 'I read this once' bits thrown in about Islam

Quick question did dinosaurs reproduce?
 
I bet no athiest has put forward any 'theory' for the origins of the world

Several have.
Wrong as usual.

I see the ususal 'prove' god exists and the usual 'christian' arguments are being discussed. As well as the 'I read this once' bits thrown in about Islam

Wow, people are asking for proof to back up a claim.
How outrageous.

Quick question did dinosaurs reproduce?

Yes.
 
I didn't claim that it was.

I thought you said 'others'? so not talking about you
'others' put this forward and were incorrect no?
so where is the theory?
besides I am asking YOU


See the link that ST provided.

so this?

When scientists study dinosaurs, they make inferences, or draw logical conclusions, based on physical evidence and the way other life forms behave. One inference is that dinosaurs reproduced sexually and laid eggs. This is logical for several reasons:
•Birds and reptiles, dinosaurs' nearest relatives, reproduce sexually.
•Birds and reptiles also lay eggs.
 
I thought you said 'others'? so not talking about you
'others' put this forward and were incorrect no?
so where is the theory?
besides I am asking YOU

Nobody put forward the theory of evolution to explain "the origins of the world".


I'm not massively familiar with the theories of reproductive behaviour amongst dinosaurs, but I'll say yes for now.

Why?
 
Every one. You are given a perfectly acceptable answer then you ignore it and ask the same inane question again.

Giving an answer does not make it 'acceptable', and i didnt ignore it I questioned it. origins of the universe and evolution are 2 different things completely

This thread is mostly you repeating this process.
You heard of 'free will'?

Your basic knowledge of science is astoundingly poor, and from someone who claims to have been a teacher it is frightening.

yours is non existent if you believe evolution explains the origins/creation of the universe. and how does being a teacher increase your knowledge of science? unless you are a science teacher, even then I think some of the things being discussed would be above them
 
I can only imagine that TFWNN is attempting to wow us with knowledge and convert some to Islam, they get special bonus points for recruiting .
 
I think he is just a troll. No one can be this dumb. He probably isn't even a muslim.

To be honest, I think he might actually have a form of autism. He's clearly incapable of grasping what other people are saying and seems to read everything differently from everyone else.

You make a point about something and he responds with a comment which bears no relation to the point you've made. It's quite bizarre.
 
Nobody put forward the theory of evolution to explain "the origins of the world".

I read one early on. But could you point to a couple that did, and if they were 'proveable'

I'm not massively familiar with the theories of reproductive behaviour amongst dinosaurs, but I'll say yes for now.

Why?

Because there is absolutely no evidence that dinosaurs had sex etc
we base it on what we know and see

birds lay eggs, so dinosaurs must have been like birds etc in terms of reproduction

Now you know I am not a creationist in the christian sense
but how can you accept one based on what we 'know' but not another?
 
Because there is absolutely no evidence that dinosaurs had sex etc
we base it on what we know and see

birds lay eggs, so dinosaurs must have been like birds etc in terms of reproduction

Now you know I am not a creationist in the christian sense
but how can you accept one based on what we 'know' but not another?

Bizarre.