Kimi's Potty Mouth

[cavallino 2]

Wouldn't the most widely-supported one be the most popular one?

Or are you saying there are no other theories? Take a look at this, for example http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/05...licuniverse.htm. It's not my area of speciality, but is this one of the alternative theories or has it been disproved?

Popularity implies something else, lets say popular among scientists.

No indeed I have read about that theory and it hasn't been discarded - as I said if you come up with a theory that explains observed phenomena, anyone would be more than willing to consider it, they do not consider religious 'theories' because they aren't based on anything except someone's imagination.

I did not equate them in the sense that you are trying to say, not once. I said both ultimately require a leap of faith, meaning that with the current big bang theory you ultimately have to believe in something that cannot be proven.

No, you don't have to believe anything, you simply have to accept the overwhelming evidence that it is the best existing explanation - as Ihave said repeatedly, if someone comes up with a completely different but equally justifiable theory, there is absolutely no reason that it won't be considered. There is no belief of any kind, explicit or implied, you are perfectly welcome to disagree with the theory on scientific grounds. Belief is a term that should be associated with religion, which is why I strongly object to its use in this context.

I have already answered this the first time round. I have never needed or asked for evidence from you as to why you believe in the big bang theory, because I know that you can't provide any - if you could, you would have done so by now and vice versa.

Evidence? Of course there is evidence, that is what the theory is based on - the general theory of relativity, the expansion of the universe, the Microwave background radiation to name some. Now what comparable evidence do you have?

I never said you couldn't disagree. If science could prove that God does not exist, then it would have done, we all know that and we wouldn't be having this conversation now, quoting you from earlier

I am not being funny, Cav, but I truthfully don't know what you are trying to say with these statements - can you explain them again? Cheers.

The bible makes no sense compared to everything that has been observed in the past 100 years (say). It doens't stand up to the most rudimentary of scrutiny.

I really don't think we're going to convince each other, Cav!! I don't think I really have a biased one-sided view of the world, like you think I have!!

I am comfortable in what I believe in, it is you who seems to have the contradicitons to deal with. Anyway, the point of this debates like any other is not to convince the other person, but rather to present our arguments for a person reading the debate, which is why I persist

i am kere after 48 hrs and after reading this Sh#t i am having a bad headache

bring it on bajo ur NK threads are much better

I'm glad, the last thing I need is a Gandhian stepping in with his warped world view.

[Shane2 0]

I believe in God, though I haven't been to Church for a good few years now - what's know in the trade as a backslider!! However, the bit in bold is what I try not to do, otherwise I would be dismissive of science, dismissive of other religions that didn't agree with mine, etc and personally I don't think that is the way to be.

Yep it is, but a few of us agreed earlier that we would continue to go off topic, but it's all civil so it's ok!!

Yep i personally don't care on by board as long as no flaming comes in. I was born into a Christian family, but i have never liked or believed in Religion. I prefer to live by a set of values i have arrived at myself. What annoys me is like Muslims: "we are the ultimate religion" or those people knocking on the door saying "save yourself from sin"

[Max Mosley 2]

The bible makes no sense compared to everything that has been observed in the past 100 years (say). It doens't stand up to the most rudimentary of scrutiny.

Indeed, if the Bible is interpreted literally. Of course some Xians have the good sense not to do such a thing, in which case all this science vs religion is missing the point.

[Max Mosley 2]

However, the bit in bold is what I try not to do, otherwise I would be dismissive of science, dismissive of other religions that didn't agree with mine, etc and personally I don't think that is the way to be.

I dismiss all incorrect beliefs. Note there is not necessarily a conflict between science and religion, you can accept modern science in its entirety but believe God set the whole Big Bang in motion, in a way of His choosing. That is religion at its best imho. Anything else is irrational, wishful thinking and incorrect.

I believe in God, though I haven't been to Church for a good few years now - what's know in the trade as a backslider!!

Well I went to Church until a couple of years ago, and I might still be regarded as a backslider by some.

[pabloh20 1]

Popularity implies something else, lets say popular among scientists.

Ahhh ok, no I didn't mean it as popular as in world popular, I did actually mean it as in popular among scientists.

No indeed I have read about that theory and it hasn't been discarded - as I said if you come up with a theory that explains observed phenomena, anyone would be more than willing to consider it, they do not consider religious 'theories' because they aren't based on anything except someone's imagination.

No, you don't have to believe anything, you simply have to accept the overwhelming evidence that it is the best existing explanation - as Ihave said repeatedly, if someone comes up with a completely different but equally justifiable theory, there is absolutely no reason that it won't be considered. There is no belief of any kind, explicit or implied, you are perfectly welcome to disagree with the theory on scientific grounds. Belief is a term that should be associated with religion, which is why I strongly object to its use in this context.

Well I guess we will agree to disagree on this. You have your term for it and I have a different view.

Evidence? Of course there is evidence, that is what the theory is based on - the general theory of relativity, the expansion of the universe, the Microwave background radiation to name some. Now what comparable evidence do you have?

Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, as Mike said earlier, Jesus appeared to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus. His letters to the Romans, Corinthians, etc are not disputed, even by critics, he did actually write them and he talks of receiving the gospel directly from God.

There is evidence of a global flood as described in the Bible.

In the Bible it states that the world was round in Isaiah, this would have been contrary to the general & scientific belief until it was proven much, much later.

In the 2nd book of Kings there is reference to the sun, moon & planets - same again.

The Bible refers to the evaporation process between the sea, clouds & rivers in Ecclesiastes and Job.

You'll like this one - it is believed that the Bible refers to the universe expanding in Zechariah, Job & Isaiah. Was it 50yrs ago or so that you say scientists started on this concept??

I have tried to cocentrate on scientific ones, just for you, Cav!!

For me, personally, I just don't think a book that has no basis in fact would have stood the test of time. For example, does anybody remember David Icke? I remember all the fuss at the time when he actually claimed he was the son of God. What happened to him? Did anybody else start proclaiming him as the son of God and write a 'bible' about him? No they didn't, he was exposed as what he is. I have to wonder then, why this didn't happen with Jesus. If he was purely fictional or a fraud then why has it persisted?

The bible makes no sense compared to everything that has been observed in the past 100 years (say). It doens't stand up to the most rudimentary of scrutiny.

In what sense ?

I am comfortable in what I believe in, it is you who seems to have the contradicitons to deal with. Anyway, the point of this debates like any other is not to convince the other person, but rather to present our arguments for a person reading the debate, which is why I persist

Nope, I don't have any problems at all, thanks, Cav. I am happy and I am not so dismissive of other beliefs, either!!

Yep i personally don't care on by board as long as no flaming comes in. I was born into a Christian family, but i have never liked or believed in Religion. I prefer to live by a set of values i have arrived at myself. What annoys me is like Muslims: "we are the ultimate religion" or those people knocking on the door saying "save yourself from sin"

I must admit, this is something which I don't think the Church get right. I know the principal behind it - if even 1 person is saved then it's worthwhile. But, I have to wonder how many people are pushed further away by such visits and preaching in the street, etc.

[Max Mosley 2]

Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, as Mike said earlier, Jesus appeared to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus. His letters to the Romans, Corinthians, etc are not disputed, even by critics, he did actually write them and he talks of receiving the gospel directly from God.

There is evidence of a global flood as described in the Bible.

In the Bible it states that the world was round in Isaiah, this would have been contrary to the general & scientific belief until it was proven much, much later.

In the 2nd book of Kings there is reference to the sun, moon & planets - same again.

The Bible refers to the evaporation process between the sea, clouds & rivers in Ecclesiastes and Job.

You'll like this one - it is believed that the Bible refers to the universe expanding in Zechariah, Job & Isaiah. Was it 50yrs ago or so that you say scientists started on this concept??

I have tried to cocentrate on scientific ones, just for you, Cav!!

For me, personally, I just don't think a book that has no basis in fact would have stood the test of time. For example, does anybody remember David Icke? I remember all the fuss at the time when he actually claimed he was the son of God. What happened to him? Did anybody else start proclaiming him as the son of God and write a 'bible' about him? No they didn't, he was exposed as what he is. I have to wonder then, why this didn't happen with Jesus. If he was purely fictional or a fraud then why has it persisted?

But surely you don't believe in any crazy tale you hear? I mean if I published a book saying my wife got pregnant and it wasn't anything to do with me, rather a "holy spirit" had touched her, would you believe me or think I was somewhat naive? What about alien abductions? What about religious experiences in other religions? Especially 2000 years ago, religious experiences were 2 a penny. For instance there were many other Xian sects who claimed divine inspiration but were largely wiped out by what became the orthodox sect.

Your other argument, about why it has persisted, is a circular one. It persists because it persists: everyone is reassured by everyone else's belief!

[pabloh20 1]

I dismiss all incorrect beliefs. Note there is not necessarily a conflict between science and religion, you can accept modern science in its entirety but believe God set the whole Big Bang in motion, in a way of His choosing. That is religion at its best imho. Anything else is irrational, wishful thinking and incorrect.

Well I went to Church until a couple of years ago, and I might still be regarded as a backslider by some.

See, I knew all your opinions and views were completely wrong!!

[Max Mosley 2]

You've lost me pabloh!

[pabloh20 1]

But surely you don't believe in any crazy tale you hear? I mean if I published a book saying my wife got pregnant and it wasn't anything to do with me, rather a "holy spirit" had touched her, would you believe me or think I was somewhat naive? What about alien abductions? What about religious experiences in other religions? Especially 2000 years ago, religious experiences were 2 a penny. For instance there were many other Xian sects who claimed divine inspiration but were largely wiped out by what became the orthodox sect.

No, I don't, but if you read Paul's letters, you realise he's not crazy.

As I said, I am not dismissive of other religions or beliefs, but it doesn't stop me from believing in my God.

And this is my point - you could start something like that and even with all the technology at our disposal to basically publish it for the world to view on the internet and it just wouldn't work, not unless you could prove that you weren't a fruitcake & that your wife had been touched, but it wasn't by the holy spirit. It has to have something more, it has to have some substance. Human nature is to be critical and doubt such things, yet the Bible is still here.

Your other argument, about why it has persisted, is a circular one. It persists because it persists: everyone is reassured by everyone else's belief!

See, I just can't relate to that. It just doesn't work for me on so many levels. To me that's just an easy, off the cuff remark to make, to try & explain away something that we can't account for.

You've lost me pabloh!

You said you dismiss all incorrect beliefs, so I just dismissed your views and opinions.......and........ok, I'll get me coat!!

Anyway, I think I'm officially all Scienced & Religioned out now!! I am under no illusions about convincing anybody else, although I have learnt a few new things on the way, which is generally my aim in life. Not least of the things I've learnt is an alternative to the big bang theory, that I actually quite like, so I will have to do a bit more research on that one.

[Max Mosley 2]

And this is my point - you could start something like that and even with all the technology at our disposal to basically publish it for the world to view on the internet and it just wouldn't work, not unless you could prove that you weren't a fruitcake & that your wife had been touched, but it wasn't by the holy spirit. It has to have something more, it has to have some substance. Human nature is to be critical and doubt such things, yet the Bible is still here.

But it wasn't 2000 years ago! Strangely enough, fewer miracles seem to happen today, for instance.

See, I just can't relate to that. It just doesn't work for me on so many levels. To me that's just an easy, off the cuff remark to make, to try & explain away something that we can't account for.

I tihnk its the only difference between religion and anything I could say. One already has a following and the other doesn't. So people follow one and not the other. Its also why eg Hinduism hasn't spread to the UK much despite it seeming common sense to other people, and vice versa regarding christianity. People are herd creatures.

You said you dismiss all incorrect beliefs, so I just dismissed your views and opinions.......and........ok, I'll get me coat!!

[Autumnpuma 0]

I tihnk its the only difference between religion and anything I could say. One already has a following and the other doesn't. So people follow one and not the other. Its also why eg Hinduism hasn't spread to the UK much despite it seeming common sense to other people, and vice versa regarding christianity. People are herd creatures.

Perhaps. We all (excepting atheists) agree there is a 'divine' aspect to the universe, but each culture finds it in it's own way. I think of it in terms of the computer/software analogy of a few posts above.

[Max Mosley 2]

I'm actually quite attracted to pan-theism or something. I'm not really sure what it is yet, although I believe its the "worship" of Nature itself. You can call the amazing qualities the world has god-like. God becomes more like a poetic metaphor than a literal description of an extant personality. I'm very keen to know how many anglican clergymen actually believe in an extant personality as God, rather than the above metaphorical version, as I think quite a few may take the latter view. The fact they don't say is imho a manifestation of their anti-education attitude but I think anonymous polls have been conducted showing a sizeable minority take the metaphorical view.

I think your post above, Mike, is interesting. The more abstract one makes religion the more attractive to me. If you don't mind I have some questions about it. First, how does one decide moral dilemas - by following the Bible literally, or using one's own conscience, or a mixture of both? This seems connected to your idea because if one happens to be in a different culture of course one would have followed a different holy book. Often the holy books will agree but sometimes not.

Second, what about Jesus' claim the only way to the lord is through him? Presumably we can interpret this metaphorically if we want: "through him" means by living righteously, however we define that.

Third, what about atheists? We can live just as righteously without worshipping any God or Gods. I think this is relevant because if we say that worshipping Ganesh is just as good as Jove then perhaps its not so important to worship anyone. Hmm I'm not sure about this one as I don't see the justification for worship anyway.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I'm actually quite attracted to pan-theism or something. I'm not really sure what it is yet, although I believe its the "worship" of Nature itself. You can call the amazing qualities the world has god-like. God becomes more like a poetic metaphor than a literal description of an extant personality. I'm very keen to know how many anglican clergymen actually believe in an extant personality as God, rather than the above metaphorical version, as I think quite a few may take the latter view. The fact they don't say is imho a manifestation of their anti-education attitude but I think anonymous polls have been conducted showing a sizeable minority take the metaphorical view.

Perhaps you don't need to read any Campbell, you've got a pretty good working knowledge of his views In today's context, this would be the worship/following of Gaia, currently being forwarded by the UN, amoung other agencies...

I think your post above, Mike, is interesting. The more abstract one makes religion the more attractive to me. If you don't mind I have some questions about it. First, how does one decide moral dilemas - by following the Bible literally, or using one's own conscience, or a mixture of both? This seems connected to your idea because if one happens to be in a different culture of course one would have followed a different holy book. Often the holy books will agree but sometimes not.

In some religions, there is a good, a bad and an 'above'. Hunduism is a good example of this. There are good acts on one extreme and bad acts on the other extreme and somewhere in the middle (or above) is the truth. If good and bad are simply natural behaviours, then both are natural for us to feel and do. This is an area that shintoism and hinduism are alike. Aside from this viewpoint, all religions have basic definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' that match pretty well with each other. There are variances, but the similarities outnumber those.

Second, what about Jesus' claim the only way to the lord is through him? Presumably we can interpret this metaphorically if we want: "through him" means by living righteously, however we define that.

You can interpret it metaphorically, but you wouldn't be following that religion if you do so. Jesus literally meant that through a belief in Him, and Him alone, you will be saved. There isn't any wiggle-room there.

Third, what about atheists? We can live just as righteously without worshipping any God or Gods. I think this is relevant because if we say that worshipping Ganesh is just as good as Jove then perhaps its not so important to worship anyone. Hmm I'm not sure about this one as I don't see the justification for worship anyway.

If these are serious questions, then you are a shintoist at heart! Judaism, Chritianity and Islam all believe that you MUST follow their path. The rest, as far as I've found, take a broader view of the subject. The difference in worshipping Ganesh or YHVH is in that deity's interpretation of your worship. Ganesh might be forgiving, but YHVH may not be.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

On the subject of hell, hell basically means absence from God, the presence of the Lord is not there. What a terrible place that must be. It states the bottomless pit....In hell you sink all the time, you can't speak, you moan as you "drown", endlessly. This occurs in the third sphere, this is past the radio and television wave sphere. We live in the first, where matter, time and space occur. Demons have access to that third sphere to torture souls, you're not getting off lightly by just sinking fellas....This all comes from scriptures. Everything will come together in an ultimate climax! The fires described in scriptures MIGHT relate to that yearning for God when someone is in hell, the grace is no more....I'm unsure about the actual physical fire bit.

Mr Murray Walker and Pabloah, I know what it means to be a backslider, actually such word does not exist, you're always a child of God no matter what, remember the parable of the begotten son.....I ask of you one big favour, 3 hours of your time, attend church one more time, just for me, preferably Penticostal or evangilical. I though I could never return to God, I just needed one service to get me on track again. We all fall, but by God's grace we can all get on track again....

[Max Mosley 2]

The ultimate climax eh?

You may have read too much into my joke about Bill and Monica there.

Yeah I dare say I'll go to church again, if only to see friends, or for an excuse to sing. I like the music at my old (embarassingly evangelical) church. Why do they always insist on talking in the middle of it?

[monza gorilla 1]

I just like the architecture. That's one really good thing religion has given us.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

The ultimate climax eh?

You may have read too much into my joke about Bill and Monica there.

Yeah I dare say I'll go to church again, if only to see friends, or for an excuse to sing. I like the music at my old (embarassingly evangelical) church. Why do they always insist on talking in the middle of it?

just go man , and report back when you did...

[ykickamoocow 0]

Wow. I looked at this thread awhile ago but it was about a topic which didnt interest me (Kimi's Potty mouth) so i didnt bother checking the thread. How on earth did this thread go from Kimi doing a Sh#t to religion.

[monza gorilla 1]

In the Bible it states that the world was round in Isaiah, this would have been contrary to the general & scientific belief until it was proven much, much later.

In the 2nd book of Kings there is reference to the sun, moon & planets - same again.

Pythagoras and Aristotle, and Eratosthenes all held that the Earth was spherical, which is what we now know to be the case. Didn't Isiah refer to it as round? Subtle difference. And by round, I mean like a disc.

Wow. I looked at this thread awhile ago but it was about a topic which didnt interest me (Kimi's Potty mouth) so i didnt bother checking the thread. How on earth did this thread go from Kimi doing a Sh#t to religion.

There's a lot of religious Sh#t about..........................

[cavallino 2]

Indeed, if the Bible is interpreted literally. Of course some Xians have the good sense not to do such a thing, in which case all this science vs religion is missing the point.

Indeed, I somehow got the feeling that pabloh is insisting that it is.

he talks of receiving the gospel directly from God.

That is where we diverge.

I have really no interest in finding scientific problems with the bible, I'lltry to dig up a link later I am sure a lot of people got there before me. Murray, perhaps you could help there

For me, personally, I just don't think a book that has no basis in fact would have stood the test of time.

That is easy to repulse with the same argument - some of those books disagree with each other - and they haved all stood the test of time albeit with reducing influence.

Then of course as Murray also pointed out, some people like having something to believe in unequivocally.

I must admit, this is something which I don't think the Church get right. I know the principal behind it - if even 1 person is saved then it's worthwhile. But, I have to wonder how many people are pushed further away by such visits and preaching in the street, etc.

I am always polite with people who take a no for an answer. Some don't, which is annoying (not exlcusively talking of christianity here). e.g. There was a guy trying to sell me tickets of some Buddhist night. I said no, a few times. Got a bit ugly then.

And this is my point - you could start something like that and even with all the technology at our disposal to basically publish it for the world to view on the internet and it just wouldn't work, not unless you could prove that you weren't a fruitcake & that your wife had been touched, but it wasn't by the holy spirit. It has to have something more, it has to have some substance. Human nature is to be critical and doubt such things, yet the Bible is still here.

A lot of people believed Hitler, for quite a while. Who knows, if he hadn't ruffled too many feathers it would have persisted a while. I used to wonder, but I have now ceased to be amazed by what people will believe, I have seen too much.

Not least of the things I've learnt is an alternative to the big bang theory, that I actually quite like, so I will have to do a bit more research on that one.

Great, I can point you to some absolutely fascinating books if you want, if you tell me the level you want - no math, limited math or lot of math

I just like the architecture. That's one really good thing religion has given us.

Yes, that is the only reason I ever enter religious buildings - truly wonderful.

[pabloh20 1]

Indeed, I somehow got the feeling that pabloh is insisting that it is.

That is where we diverge.

I have really no interest in finding scientific problems with the bible, I'lltry to dig up a link later I am sure a lot of people got there before me. Murray, perhaps you could help there

That is easy to repulse with the same argument - some of those books disagree with each other - and they haved all stood the test of time albeit with reducing influence.

Then of course as Murray also pointed out, some people like having something to believe in unequivocally.

I am always polite with people who take a no for an answer. Some don't, which is annoying (not exlcusively talking of christianity here). e.g. There was a guy trying to sell me tickets of some Buddhist night. I said no, a few times. Got a bit ugly then.

A lot of people believed Hitler, for quite a while. Who knows, if he hadn't ruffled too many feathers it would have persisted a while. I used to wonder, but I have now ceased to be amazed by what people will believe, I have seen too much.

Great, I can point you to some absolutely fascinating books if you want, if you tell me the level you want - no math, limited math or lot of math

Yes, that is the only reason I ever enter religious buildings - truly wonderful.

Actually, Cav, I think you have me all wrong, for so many reasons!! It doesn't matter to me if people want to pull the Bible, God or religion to pieces, that has never been the point of my posting in this thread. I am sure it doesn't matter to you, Cav, if people don't want to believe in science's version of things, it won't change you will it??

20 years ago I would have said a lot of math - now I'm going to say no maths. Cheers!

[monza gorilla 1]

I am always polite with people who take a no for an answer. Some don't, which is annoying (not exlcusively talking of christianity here). e.g. There was a guy trying to sell me tickets of some Buddhist night. I said no, a few times. Got a bit ugly then.

Unfortunately, I am no longer so polite. I'm downright rude. I object to people knocking on my door trying to sell me something (oh, yes, it is a sales pitch) that I don't want, or need, be it double glazing or religion.

[Max Mosley 2]

just go man , and report back when you did...

Will do.

[cavallino 2]

Unfortunately, I am no longer so polite. I'm downright rude. I object to people knocking on my door trying to sell me something (oh, yes, it is a sales pitch) that I don't want, or need, be it double glazing or religion.

I haven't had door to door people drop by yet, not sure how I would react to that, I mainly speak of people accosting me across uni on Sundays.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yes we call them the God-squad here.

They are not above bribing poor students with free meals, only to trap them into hearing the "good news".