***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
Today is the last day of life on earth as we know it. Make the most of it and enjoy.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13468131
edit
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/end-of-the-world-is-very-nigh-indeed-2287185.html
at 6pm apparently.
See you tomorrow ;)
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 25 May 11 at 18:46
|
"Today is the last day of life on earth as we know it."
Will be for some :-(
|
>> at 6pm apparently.
>>
Is that Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific or UTC ?
|
|
He is Californian, so Pacific I assume?
|
|
D'yer think BBD will use it as an excuse to 'go out with a bang'?
|
You'd think he could be a bit more specific.
Still, most of us will be asleep at 6pm Pacific which will be Sunday in Europe.
We'll never know who joined West Ham :-(
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 21 May 11 at 09:45
|
|
Darn, and to think I lay in bed and couldn't be bothered to get up....
|
Look on the bright side. If it's true, we don't have to go back to work on Monday...
Edit - not much point in washing the car either...
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Sat 21 May 11 at 10:11
|
I was thinking 2012.Has the date come forward?
Better not the end yet just booked a couple of weeks in Tunesia.
|
>> I was thinking 2012.Has the date come forward?
>>
>> Better not the end yet just booked a couple of weeks in Tunesia.
You did what? are you mad, man? With all the unrest there? I hope it was cheap.
|
>> You'd think he could be a bit more specific.
>> Still, most of us will be asleep at 6pm Pacific which will be Sunday in
>> Europe.
>>
>> We'll never know who joined West Ham :-(
Its good news, West ham never actually went down, there is no league next year.
|
In the 'I wish I'd thought of that' spirit.
An atheist and entrepreneur from North Hampshire, Bart Centre, is enjoying a boost in business for Eternal Earth-bound Pets, which he set up to look after the pets of those who believe they will be raptured.
He has more than 250 clients who are paying up to $135 (£83) to have their pets picked up and cared for after the rapture.
They would be disappointed twice, he told the Wall Street Journal. "Once because they weren't raptured and again because I don't do refunds."
|
|
Lat minute deal Zero a cheapy.if you don't hear from me all the best.:)
|
|
Best leave it 'till tomorrow to buy those bedding plants I suppose. Be a shame to spend your final hours in B&Q's gardening section really wouldn't it?
|
|
Damn it, I changed the bed sheets yesterday.
|
|
First time this year as well Dave.
|
|
First time since the noughties.
|
I just remembered, I have 8 bottles of wine, a litre of Tanqueray, and half a bottle of port left!
Cant leave that to be consumed by the global earthquake.
|
|
My car really is dirty. Do you think I should risk it?
|
>> My car really is dirty. Do you think I should risk it?
>>
Should have thought of this yesterday!
Spent five hours sorting the car after I realised that the 'dirt' was in fact a nice fine layer of Ronseal wood preservative that I sprayed on the back fence a few days ago. It must have been a persistent little sod because it managed to get over the house and turn my car an unusual shade of Audi brown.
My arms felt like the end of the world had come I can tell you!
|
about 11pm UK time, according to reports.
Now THAT will be interesting - "Time gentlemen, please..." and then half the clientel disappears!
|
|
I'll probably be asleep, so I'll never know. It's not really worth staying up for the end of the world, is it? Perhaps I should record it.
|
.... I feel fine....
:)
And I am sure it won't be the end of the world as we know it in 2012 either.
|
I expect we'll all just wake up in a parallel universe. So long as my other me is considerably richer I'm fine with that.
:-)
|
(Adopts smug, gleeful Brummy accent):
'Moi alter ego is CONSIDERRABLY REECHER THAN YOW!
|
|
I wish you people would take this seriously, instead of joking about it like there's no tomorrow.
|
What about all the non-believers for whom Rapture does not exist. Can they claim some form of discrimination ?
For those who do believe but again are not Raptured who do they sue ? Celtic and Motherwell received rapturous applause this afternoon, does this mean they are at the front of the queue ?
So many questions and apparently so little time.
|
|
I see that Michael Schumacher didn't bother to set a practise time in the last session of qualifying for tomorrows GP - See - he knows the truth.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 21 May 11 at 19:35
|
Well, I've washed the cars after all and indeed put my bike rack on the roof ready for a trip tomorrow. I shall feel so silly if I'm imolated or whatever later tonight. By the way, would anyone like to buy a bike rack? Could be your last chance...It's a bostin one. Aargh, what's happening....
:-)
|
I bet you pet owners are worried what happens if the Rapture takes you and leaves your pet behind. Not to worry. For $135 these good people will look after it for you.
eternal-earthbound-pets.com/
|
|
I put some weedkiller down today, I think I may have wasted my money.,
|
I just put my summer wheels and tyres on yesterday. Took my daughter swiming this morning, 120mph up the autobahn (yes, beyond 79 mph (10%+2) does not result in you falling off the planet) and didn't get rid of the chicken strips.
|
American website.I can understand people grieving about their pets sometimes its the only company they have.
I've lost a few pets over the years last one was Tom a big ginger cat.Always the first to greet me outside.Good mice catcher and also killed a few rats over the years.
I buried him in the garden I know it sounds soppy still miss him sometimes.I like the English Bull Terrier might get a pup in the future.
|
Douglas Adams: if anyone explains the universe it will explode and be replaced by something even more inexplicable, some say this has already happened.
Well AV was knocked on the head so bang goes that theory.
|
According to the BBC, the singularity would occur for each of us at 6pm local time (how would they know - not in their remit shirley?).
Given I am still here, I can't have qualified for rapturing. If indeed I was eligible, as a hardened atheist.
|
How can you be so sure you are not dead?
In the Egyptian book of the dead, it states that when you 'pass over', you are essentially the same as you were whilst alive (except for the minor issue of being without a body)
What I do at times like these is to say to my wife "dorling, I'm thinking about buying a car for £28,000".
Works every time, for me!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_dead
|
>> How can you be so sure you are not dead?
Cogito ergo sum. Being sure that anybody else actually exists is what I can't get my head around. Did Descartes crack that one, I can't remember?
|
>>Cogito ergo sum. Being sure that anybody else actually exists is what I can't get my head around. Did Descartes crack that one, I can't remember?<<
Remember your self - before your parents were born.
|
Lets wait and see what ever happens happens best not to worry.Iam just enjoying a nice glass of wine might finish off the bottle lets go out with a bang.
AV most people didn't have a clue what to vote for.The explanations regarding AV where to vague.Mind you in Holland they have Gert Wilders he doesn't pull any punches,I've heard some of his speeches he is not a mainstream politician.:)
|
>> Mind you in Holland they have Gert Wilders he doesn't pull any punches,I've heard some of his speeches he is not a mainstream politician.:)
Isn't Geerd Wilders a nutter and mischief-maker Dutchie? Aren't mainstream politicians, er, more the sort of thing you want for a peaceful life?
|
I like the FAQs;
Q: Is this a Joke?
A: No. This is a serious offer to our Christian friends who believe in the Second Coming and honestly care about the future of their pets after the Rapture occurs.
Q: Do YOU believe in the Rapture.
A: As atheists we do not hold beliefs in the supernatural or a divine being. Thus, we do not believe in the Rapture. However, we respect the beliefs of others and are open to the possibility that our perspective could possibly be wrong.
Q: How do you ensure your representatives won't be Raptured.
A: Actually, we don't ensure it, they do. Each of our representatives has stated to us in writing that they are atheists, do not believe in God / Jesus, and that they have blasphemed in accordance with
Mark 3:29, negating any chance of salvation.
|
|
Well 6pm came and went here in CET land...will take the kids swimming again tomorrow if we still exist...
|
|
But will anyone hear them...
|
Maybe he got the calculation wrong again? He originally had a date in 1994 in mind. I suppose since 1994 his 'company' has made him rich?
Or maybe it's 2012 that the world ends?
Or is the volcano erupting in Iceland the start of it all... earth quake in Japan a recent event. Then the Spanish earthquake and mount Etna erupting.
|
>>mount Etna erupting.
What? Dont say that I am on holiday on the edge of the Mount Etna national park in September
|
>>mount Etna erupting.
Well it spewed some lava that threatened the bike race it Italy completing on it for one stage.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/8510494/Giro-dItalia-2011-Mount-Etna-eruption-not-expected-to-cause-problems-despite-rocks-falling-on-roads.html
Technically it is an eruption I would think.
|
>> Well 6pm came and went here in CET land...will take the kids swimming again tomorrow
>> if we still exist...
Its still only 3:21 pacific, another 2.4 hours to go yet.
|
>> ZZZZzzzz...
Armegeddon bored as well.
|
>> >> ZZZZzzzz...
>>
>> Armegeddon bored as well.
>>
I'll tell you in the mo(u)rning ....
|
It's very quiet. There is no traffic.
I can see a triffid wobbling up the road.
|
On a serious note, remember every day could be our last and the end of our personal worlds...
|
>> On a serious note, remember every day could be our last and the end of
>> our personal worlds...
>>
>>
Jeez, I was sitting here quite happy till I read that, now I'm depressed :-(
Mind you, you're right enough.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Sun 22 May 11 at 12:38
|
|
Heaven ( or hell ) seems a bit of an anti-climax. To top it off, they even have a sovereign debt crisis in the afterlife. Ho-hum.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13489641
'Rapture' believers perplexed after prediction fails
|
>> 'Rapture' believers perplexed after prediction fails
I never cease to be amazed by the pathetic stupidity of people who want to believe things. Always seemed to me it was better to know them, or be working on trying to understand them. Even when I was a child and somewhat infected with religious belief.
I wonder how the swindling old billygoat managed to make a dishonest buck out of rapture? Perhaps he collected most of the believers' worldly goods on the understanding that they wouldn't be needing them and in the meantime he could use them to spread the word.
Smelly old git.
|
>> I never cease to be amazed by the pathetic stupidity of people who want to
>> believe things.
At least in this case they seem to genuinely believe.
It seems to me that a lot of people claim to believe in god, but then dismiss the rapture as nonsense.
It is nonsense, of course, but if you claim to believe that the universe was made, and is run, by a supreme being, then the Rapture should be entirely plausible.
I suppose that if you believe in God then your critical reasoning is pretty screwed, and so making the logical error of dismissing the rapture as nonsense is understandable.
|
I don't think that follows SS. Belief of a vague sort in a supreme being or creator of the universe is time-honoured and interferes with nothing else. Many ground-breaking scientists have held such belief and it hasn't hampered their thought processes at all.
On the other hand tinpot rubbish that comes out of nowhere, or from under a stone, isn't time-honoured and usually does interfere with other aspects of a believer's life. Clearly in addition to their stupidity and ignorance, people who cluster around beliefs of this sort and 'gurus' like the sinister gothic lunatic Jim Jones or say Charles Manson, have some psychic need which undoubtedly answers an absence in their upbringing: things like emotional warmth and stability, rational and decently comported role models, etc.
It seems fairly clear that people raised in outlandishly fundamentalist Christian sects are more likely to go for these extreme and silly fantasies. They have already been brutally trained in systematic irrationality.
|
Pal of mine reckons he was raptured yesterday. Thinks it was when he was shifting some 3x2 slabs for his new patio.
:-)
|
>> I don't think that follows SS. Belief of a vague sort in a supreme being
>> or creator of the universe is time-honoured and interferes with nothing else. Many ground-breaking scientists
>> have held such belief and it hasn't hampered their thought processes at all.
It's only my opinion, of course, but if somebody is able to reason, and prepared to apply that reasoning, then they can't come to the conclusion of a supreme being as a reasonable explanation, especially if they are trained in the scientific method.
If we are talking about contemporary scientists, then I believe that it has more to do with the benefits of claiming to be religious, than actually being religious.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sun 22 May 11 at 16:34
|
>> It's only my opinion, of course, but if somebody is able to reason, and prepared to apply that reasoning, then they can't come to the conclusion of a supreme being as a reasonable explanation, especially if they are trained in the scientific method.
>> If we are talking about contemporary scientists, then I believe that it has more to do with the benefits of claiming to be religious, than actually being religious.
I used to think like you SS, but I have backed away from atheist fundamentalism. The problem really is the bottomless mystery, not of consciousness, which is a sort of process, easily explicable, but of existence itself. What is everything? Is it real?
The vertigo that can result from these thoughts was soothed long ago by the hypothesis of a creator, which in various mutations has lasted until the present and will probably always be with us. No, it isn't a hypothesis resulting from scientific method, but that is hardly surprising given its age. What it is though is something so over-arching that it need not interfere with scientific or other thought. In other words, harmless at worst.
I often drink with an academic physicist and mathematician, no slouch, teaches or taught at a leading London University college, who is a Catholic convert. Sometimes he guffaws: 'You don't have to be mad to be a Catholic, but it sure helps!' Yet he is a believer, doesn't drink in Lent, that sort of thing. I was raised a s a Catholic but for more than 50 years have been an atheist. Yet we are good friends and argue loudly about theology among other things. Life's tapestry is a bit richer than a lot of people think.
|
>> I used to think like you SS, but I have backed away from atheist fundamentalism.
>> The problem really is the bottomless mystery, not of consciousness, which is a sort of
>> process, easily explicable, but of existence itself. What is everything? Is it real?
>>
>> The vertigo that can result from these thoughts was soothed long ago by the hypothesis
>> of a creator, which in various mutations has lasted until the present and will probably
>> always be with us. No, it isn't a hypothesis resulting from scientific method, but that
>> is hardly surprising given its age. What it is though is something so over-arching that
>> it need not interfere with scientific or other thought. In other words, harmless at worst.
It most cases it probably is harmless, of course there are exceptions when it is used to prop up other agendas, but no need to worry about those here.
I've no doubt that people cling to the idea of a creator for various reasons, including the vertigo you mentioned, and perhaps we all would, given the right circumstances.
Still, in the metaphorical cold light of day, anybody who has strong critical reasoning skills can't conceivably think that the idea of a creator is a reasonable conclusion. They should, rightly, not completely dismiss it, but give it the weighting that its evidence deserves.
I'm sure your friend has his reasons for converting, and I am sure that they are good, and that it probably makes life's tapestry richer, as you say.
It is presumptuous of me, but I would guess that he gets enough out of his faith, that he is prepared to not shine the spotlight of his intellect on it. Much like a man who loves his wife and family life, and decides to never come home early when the pool cleaner is making one of his regular visits to the house.
|
Clearly not HHG2TG fan SS ! - For what its worth a liberal interpretation of the Bible or the Qur'an (two religious handbooks that I have a certain amount of knowledge of - there are others !) provide a reasonable model for life. Me ? I'm an agnostic - despite life's trials and tribulations I haven't reached the tipping point of being an atheist or a Christian but it's difficult to argue with Psalm 91 as to how faith can provide support in difficult times.
(King James version) on the below link.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+91&version=KJV
Maybe I'm a dyslexic Christian and I believe in Dog though !
|
>> For what its worth a liberal interpretation of
>> the Bible or the Qur'an (two religious handbooks that I have a certain amount of
>> knowledge of - there are others !) provide a reasonable model for life.
I haven't read either of them extensively, but I've no doubt that you're right.
>> it's difficult to argue with Psalm 91
>> as to how faith can provide support in difficult times.
Again, no doubt that you are right.
I don't dispute that people can get a lot out of religious beliefs, and neither do I think that they shouldn't try to, or that they shouldn't try to follow the teachings.
My only point is that none of it stands up to any kind of critical reasoning. So, if you claim to actually believe in it (rather than just follow its teachings), you are either incapable of the required level of reasoning, you are deciding not to apply it (because you gain more by not doing so), or you are not being truthful about believing in it, and are just claiming to do so, for some other purpose.
It is only a guess, but I reckon that most people fall into the first category, many into the second, and a fair few into the last.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sun 22 May 11 at 18:06
|
|
Coverdale's translation of the psalms, please PU. (The translation in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. And the "old" translation widely known and used. www.synaxis.info/psalter/5_english/c_psalms/new_BCP_Psalter.html )
|
>> I'm sure your friend has his reasons for converting, and I am sure that they are good, and that it probably makes life's tapestry richer, as you say.
Heh heh... he's a pretty virtuous guy SS, so you can be sure his reasons are good. He was raised C of E so it wasn't a big step, converting to Papism. For what it's worth I think he feels a need for a moral matrix from outside himself. It isn't just lonely being on your own: you have to waste a lot of energy puzzling out moral conclusions that, in virtually identical form, are ready in the files for a believer. It's economical of effort.
On life's rich tapestry though, I wasn't thinking of believers. I don't know how rich it is for them - not very in a lot of cases I often suspect. I meant it's richer for me than it was when I deluded myself that I was necessarily more rational, critical and intelligent than people who believe in
God. That is a delusion of the atheist fundamentalist. It may be so in some cases, but it isn't always.
|
>> I meant it's richer for me than it was when I deluded myself that I
>> was necessarily more rational, critical and intelligent than people who believe in
>> God. That is a delusion of the atheist fundamentalist. It may be so in some
>> cases, but it isn't always.
You've just give up the fight AC, which is fine because there isn't much to be gained from fighting it, and being happy is better than being right (no doubt the truly smart people decide happiness over being right).
Yet, the cold reality is that, if you strip out all the reasons that people might have for deluding themselves about a creator, or the reasons for claiming to believe in a creator, and yet find that they are not able to reason that the conclusion of a creator is unreasonable, then you are able to reason better than them.
Same with a friend of mine, who is very convinced that the the idea of God is ridiculous, but also finds the idea of life on other planets equally ridiculous.
|
>> You've just give up the fight AC,
NO SS.
I realised some time back that there just wasn't a fight really. With people who are honest and give a toss about truth, whatever their ostensible beliefs, there is no problem. With people who are stubbornly deluded in a tiresome, intrusive way, there may be a short fight, ending either in victory or the realization that you are wasting your breath on a blockhead. In any case there isn't really a fight to give up. I don't care about persuading people not to believe in things. I regard them as free to do so. If they seem very thick or very bigoted, I don't talk to them for long. Too much like hard work.
I am talking of course about belief in God, writ large, not anyone's tiresomely detailed and perverse creed. Those I take as I find them. Some are much worse than others.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 22 May 11 at 20:51
|
Yeah. I didn't really mean the fight to convince others. You soon realise that is somebody has a very good reason to want A to be true, then you have very little chance of getting them to accept B, or even question A. Can be fun to try sometimes, but not if you let it frustrate you.
I meant more the fight to maintain your own intellectual integrity, in the face of weak arguments, and the honest desire to see the other point of view.
I'm all for having the corners knocked off our confidence as we get older (I'll warrant you've had a few more corners knocked off that me, but they'll be knocked off me in time).
There are some things though, very few of them, that you are what they are. I'd never say that there isn't a creator, but reason tells us that there is no evidence for one (unless we fall into some kind of intelligent design fallacy - that a lack of proof otherwise is evidence), and so somebody that takes it on faith, does have a big flaw in their reasoning.
Nothing is black and white about the whole issue of where the universe came from, including the slim possibility of a creator, but that flaw in reason is a flaw in reason, and always will be.
Anyway, even then, I was only joking about you having given up the fight. Just trying to push a button. ;)
|
SS>> It's only my opinion, of course, but if somebody is able to reason, and prepared
>> to apply that reasoning, then they can't come to the conclusion of a supreme being
>> as a reasonable explanation, especially if they are trained in the scientific method.
Perhaps I'm being very stupid, but I do not see why you think that humans' being capable of reasoning precludes the existence of God?
|
>> Perhaps I'm being very stupid, but I do not see why you think that humans'
>> being capable of reasoning precludes the existence of God?
Hi MM. It's not that people being able to reason precludes the existence of God.
There are reasons that people choose to believe in God, or claim to believe in God, but if you strip those away, and look at it critically, then there is no reason to think that he is the correct hypothesis.
Without wanting to get into a deep debate on this, there are really two logical threads that lead people to conclude that a creator exists.
Firstly, they may rely upon evidence of a creator, such as religious texts. Secondly, they may rely upon the fact that there is no fully proven alternative.
Intelligent Design falls broadly in the second thread, claiming that science cannot completely explain the complexity and therefore there may well be a creator.
Both of these threads are fundamentally flawed. There is no direct evidence for a creator, and the lack of a complete alternative explanation doesn't provide that evidence (it leaves a creator as a possibility, but doesn't provide any evidence of him).
It would be incorrect to rule out a creator but, without a complete explanation, there is no evidence that there is a creator, so to come to a strong belief that there is, shows fundamentally flawed reasoning (again, if you exclude the fact that people might selectively avoid applying reason, if they gain more from believing in a creator).
Of course, my original point was that I am surprised when people do come to the conclusion of an all powerful creator, but then seem to believe that him reaching down from the sky and bringing them all up to heaven is somehow crazy.
If you believe that some entity created the fabric of the universe and perhaps guides it everyday, then it would seem trivial for him to reach down and pluck people up.
|
>> I am surprised when people do come to the conclusion of an all powerful creator, but then seem to believe that him reaching down from the sky and bringing them all up to heaven is somehow crazy.
That is because you come from a religious culture - Christianity - that holds, generally speaking, that the creator of the universe is a friend of ours. There is less 'evidence' for this than there is for the existence of a creator: that cannot finally be disproved, while there is every sign that whatever controls the universe doesn't discriminate in our favour. There is every indication that one day, not soon I hope, we will be wiped out and disappear.
Other religions sometimes have a less cosy view of our relations with the gods, who have often been portrayed elsewhere as vengeful, punitive, evil or malevolent. Indeed the Judaeo-Christian God is sometimes represented as getting a bit shirty. Just like us in fact, being made in our image. The point really is that God may have made us, but why should we think he might deem a bunch of half-witted Americans worthy of being scooped up into his spaceship? It seems a step too far.
I must say your harping on 'evidence' makes me smile SS. Evidence doesn't have much of a role in spiritual matters. Chalk and cheese my dear fellow...
|
>>The point really is that God may have made us, but why
>> should we think he might deem a bunch of half-witted Americans worthy of being scooped
>> up into his spaceship? It seems a step too far.
Well, quite, but whether somebody believes in the rapture or not, it doesn't make sense to dismiss it as some kind of quackery, if that somebody has already fallen for the delusion of a creator.
>> I must say your harping on 'evidence' makes me smile SS. Evidence doesn't have much
>> of a role in spiritual matters. Chalk and cheese my dear fellow...
No, of course. That's what I mean when I say that people will decide not to look at the evidence (or lack of it), if they value their spirituality over their intellectual integrity. I'm not trying to judge those people, except to say that they either have poor reasoning or choose not to reason when it suits them.
Same as the guy who doesn't want to catch the pool cleaner and his wife at it, and would rather live in blissful ignorance.
If delusion makes them happy, then far be it from me to try to make them unhappy.
|
>> Well, quite, but whether somebody believes in the rapture or not, it doesn't make sense to dismiss it as some kind of quackery, if that somebody has already fallen for the delusion of a creator.
Of course it makes sense SS. In your fundamentalist zeal you are clinging to the delusion that belief in a supreme being is necessarily a delusion. It may or may not be a delusion, but it is a time-honoured hypothesis that hasn't so far been disproved.
On the other hand 'rapture', which I only heard of when I looked at this thread, is obvious quackery and incredibly crude and childish. Not like proper religious belief at all.
EDIT: another sign of your fundamentalism, SS, is the repeated reference to the pool cleaner and the cuckold looking the other way. You want to show how strongly you disrespect all these deluded believers by likening them to a cuckold. A bit of an underhand journalistic technique actually.
You don't work for the Daily Mail by any chance do you?
:o}
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 23 May 11 at 14:12
|
>> Of course it makes sense SS. In your fundamentalist zeal you are clinging to the
>> delusion that belief in a supreme being is necessarily a delusion. It may or may
>> not be a delusion, but it is a time-honoured hypothesis that hasn't so far been
>> disproved.
I hope this is sarcasm AC.
What on earth is a "time-honoured hypothesis"? If you have an hypothesis that has absolutely zero evidence, then you are close to having a delusion.
This "time-honoured hypothesis" is exactly that. Don't start trying to get me into the whole debate of whether it is a reasonable hypothesis, or I won't take you seriously.
I thought we were just shooting the breeze about whether somebody could claim to believe in a creator and also claim to have strong reasoning skills.
You don't actually put any stock in the idea of a creator, do you?
>> On the other hand 'rapture', which I only heard of when I looked at this
>> thread, is obvious quackery and incredibly crude and childish. Not like proper religious belief at
>> all.
I trust this is sarcasm too.
>> EDIT: another sign of your fundamentalism, SS, is the repeated reference to the pool cleaner
>> and the cuckold looking the other way. You want to show how strongly you disrespect
>> all these deluded believers by likening them to a cuckold. A bit of an underhand
>> journalistic technique actually.
No disrespect intended. Just the first example that sprung to mind of a situation, where somebody could reason the outcome, but chooses not to for their own reasons.
Actually not a pop at the deluded believers, rather the ones that are not really deluded, but just choose to be a bit deluded.
|
>> >> On the other hand 'rapture', which I only heard of when I looked at
>> this
>> >> thread, is obvious quackery and incredibly crude and childish. Not like proper religious belief
>> at
>> >> all.
>>
>> I trust this is sarcasm too.
SS, you clearly fail to appreciate how well founded, crafted, and culturally assimilated religion is, its had a long grounding and history, way before the "one god" was ever considered. If you wanted to build a cult you cant better the old ways. AC is merely pointing out how crude and facile the modern american evangelist is compared to the old hands who have the history and background, and yes the tools of a craft built over aeons.
|
|
Z is right there. Even a determined atheist can see that to the right sort of Christian, their god is a personification of all the good, tolerant, caring, altruistic, non-judgmental elements of human nature. Calling down divine vengeance on imagined 'sinners' whose principal sin is Not Being Like Us is the province of the angry, ignorant, morally and intellectually bankrupt evangelical rabble; the two groups - and 'gods' - have almost nothing in common.
|
>> This "time-honoured hypothesis" is exactly that. Don't start trying to get me into the whole debate of whether it is a reasonable hypothesis, or I won't take you seriously.
>> I thought we were just shooting the breeze about whether somebody could claim to believe in a creator and also claim to have strong reasoning skills.
The beauty and fecundity of our planet, the way it all seems to work and in a way to have been made for us, is surely ample 'evidence' for the hypothesis of an omnipotent - and even benevolent - creator, anyway before the Enlightenment and the evolution of the scientific method by which you set such store.
I do assure you SS that there are people with very strong reasoning skills who also believe in a creator, although I am not one of them. I have already tried to point out to you that reason and 'evidence' don't count for everything in this spiritual area, as it is called. But they do count for something. What you will find is that most big mainstream world religions, for most believers, are more or less compatible with the way things are and a rational management of things like the state, the law and the family. Obviously they would have to be. Their histories are rich in conflict and change.
Small cults for the neurotic and deprived, led by charismatic swindlers, are another matter altogether. I see that others have now tried to help you understand. But if you can't see it, you can't. I don't really blame you for being fundamentalist in a slightly clacking way, perhaps because you are still youngish. But if you are as bright as you think you are, you will one day come to a more nuanced view of the supremacy of 'reasoning ability'. It is a mere tool after all.
|
>> The beauty and fecundity of our planet, the way it all seems to work and
>> in a way to have been made for us, is surely ample 'evidence' for the
>> hypothesis of an omnipotent - and even benevolent - creator, anyway before the Enlightenment and
>> the evolution of the scientific method by which you set such store.
Ah, I see. So you are swayed by a main thrust of the "intelligent design" argument, that the complexity of life and how everything fits well, is some kind of evidence.
Of course, that misses the point that in a universe of almost countless planets, a very small fraction will be just right, and the intelligent beings will be on those, and also that evolution explains (pretty much completely) how life can gain the complexity it has.
A creator is an hypothesis, of course, but there is zero evidence for it, and unexplained complexity is not evidence.
You have fallen into that trap, a bit. I don't mean to be disrespectful by saying that.
>> I don't really blame you for being fundamentalist in a slightly
>> clacking way, perhaps because you are still youngish. But if you are as bright as
>> you think you are, you will one day come to a more nuanced view of
>> the supremacy of 'reasoning ability'. It is a mere tool after all.
Firstly AC, get your facts straight, I'm not "youngish", I am "young" (speaking of delusion) ;)
Secondly, I might develop a more nuanced view, but if that involves me giving up the intellectual integrity to stand by a conviction that, say, evidence of complexity is evidence of a creator, then I will have given up the fight.
You'll be aware of Richard Dawkins of course. He hasn't given up the fight for intellectual integrity, while still being, I think, open minded. I think he can be very tiresome, and I wouldn't personally want to spend too much time in his company, but I do respect the fact that he hasn't given up that fight (even though I think maybe his life is poorer for being so determined).
Too many people do give up the fight, and finally bow to the people that use other tools, all in the name of being nuanced.
He's only a few years younger than you, I think, and, who knows, maybe he with have an epiphany in those few years.
|
>> You'll be aware of Richard Dawkins
The atheist fundamentalist leader? Yes, I have heard of him. Earnest. Boring rather.
So, SS, you admit to actually being a whippersnapper do you? No wonder you are so free with vague remarks about intellectual integrity. No wonder that, when spoken to kindly by an atheist of fifty three years' standing, you take them for an intelligent design wonk and don't hesitate to say so. No wonder you don't recognize it when you've been given something to chew on, but instead of trying to assimilate it spit it out and go banging on as usual.
I was more like you when I was younger. But I still knew what a nuance was when it actually bit me in the rump.
Perhaps you won't mature with age. Perhaps you will still be clacking away like a steam telex when you are 50 or more, like the worthy but dull Dawkins. In any case you won't get any more help from me. I give up.
Cheeky little sod.
|
>> The atheist fundamentalist leader? Yes, I have heard of him. Earnest. Boring rather.
Yes, very earnest and definitely a little bit boring.
Easy to dismiss him as fundamentalist, I suppose, simply because he insists on intellectual rigour.
Of course, the people that would like you to fall for their myths, have plenty of ways to make you sound unreasonable.
"Teach the controversy" they say, explain that some people believe in a creator, be open minded, and don't be afraid to teach both view points.
All sounds very liberal, and nuanced and right thinking doesn't it?
Except it's a con. They are smart in knowing how to make people fall for logical mistakes, if they don't insist on intellectual rigour, and pass off their completed unsupported theory as if it deserves equal weight with the strong evidence for evolution (for example).
>> Perhaps you won't mature with age. Perhaps you will still be clacking away like a
>> steam telex when you are 50 or more, like the worthy but dull Dawkins. In
>> any case you won't get any more help from me. I give up.
I think you gave up on this a long time ago.
If I haven't fallen for the tricks by the time I am Dawkins age, I'll be more than happy.
Somebody has to fight the good fight I suppose. If the young only hear the viewpoint of those that want to be understanding and nuanced and liberal and open minded and, in doing so, fall for the con, then reason will go out of the window.
|
>> Of course, the people that would like you to fall for their myths, have plenty of ways to make you sound unreasonable.
>> "Teach the controversy" they say, explain that some people believe in a creator, be open minded, and don't be afraid to teach both view points.
You don't sound unreasonable to me SS. You just have the delusion that a little knowledge has made you much less idiotic than most other people. A side-effect of the arrogance of youth, which you may grow out of in time.
Perhaps you have suffered fairly recently from bad teaching on these matters. That might explain the references to teaching. Let us note in passing though that one wouldn't want children to be taught nothing about their own cultural history. You can't censor the past and claim to be intellectually rigorous. Nor, strictly speaking, should an intellectually rigorous person who doesn't know where and how the universe originated express great certainty about how it didn't originate, although a mild remark about probability might be acceptable.
Don't think I haven't noticed yr references to the scale of the universe and the possibility of intelligent life on other planets. Like others I await this possibility with interest, but I won't be holding my breath and you shouldn't either. However I wouldn't put it past you to be a flying saucer wonk. Heh heh...
|
>> I wouldn't put it past you to be a flying saucer wonk.
I do commend you though SS for the equable good nature you have displayed here in your ingenious, but ultimately repetitive, attempts to wind me up. You haven't been visibly annoyed by my own posture as the Senior Dean or heavy grandfather.
You're cool, if still a bit jagged round the edges.
:o}
|
"You're cool, if still a bit jagged round the edges."
I've been chasing his posts and giving him the thumbs up. He's on the crusade, same as me, but I can't be bothered anymore. My daughter has her first communion on Sunday and despite my best efforts I can't stop the relentless Polish Catholic machine. It all boils down to the wife not wanting to upset Uncle Henry and her Gran... surely the worst reasons to join a cult.
Still, Polish girls dress like hookers for church, so there'll be something for me to look forward to I suppose. Pray and display.
|
>> I've been chasing his posts and giving him the thumbs up.
'Have you indeed?' he asked in a thin, disapproving tone.
>> He's on the crusade, same as me, but I can't be bothered anymore.
It comes to us all in the end.
>> Polish girls dress like hookers for church
I bet Polish boys have trouble dressing like pimps though, apart from the threatened-species-skin day-glo cowboy boots of course. Aren't suits still made out of cement in those parts? And all that hair oil... so forties Havana, sweetie...
|
>> >> He's on the crusade, same as me, but I can't be bothered anymore.
>>
>> It comes to us all in the end.
Well, not really on a crusade. The occasional debate is nice, but as for really trying to change the opinion of others, I don't have the energy :)
This thread (and AC especially) has already taken up a good chunk of my online debating allowance for the month, and I can see that MM is having a go at using up the rest.
It just means that you don't get the full benefit of my motoring advice :)
It's OK though, I get a new allowance come June 1st.
|
>> You haven't been visibly
>> annoyed by my own posture as the Senior Dean or heavy grandfather.
Yeah, well, my massive intellect enables me to easily transcend such obvious devices, innit? :)
|
>> It would be incorrect to rule out a creator but, without a complete explanation, there
>> is no evidence that there is a creator, so to come to a strong belief
>> that there is, shows fundamentally flawed reasoning (again, if you exclude the fact that people
>> might selectively avoid applying reason, if they gain more from believing in a creator).
Similarly without a complete explanation there is no evidence that there is NOT a creator, so to come to a strong belief that there is NOT, shows fundamentally flawed reasoning.
From the disparaging way you refer to those who believe, it is fairly clear to me that you fall into the second camp. Even if you don't, as you appear not to have ruled His existence out, don't you think you should be a bit nicer to Him just in case He does exist?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 23 May 11 at 15:58
|
Similarly without a complete explanation there is no evidence that there is NOT a creator, so to come to a strong belief that there is NOT, shows fundamentally flawed reasoning.
Only if you assume roughly equal - or at least significant - probabilities on both sides of the argument, MM. By your argument I should also make precautionary devotions to all the Greek, Roman and Norse gods and to an invisible giant rabbit called Denzil. And if your imaginary friend is petty enough to give a damn what I think of her/him then he/she fails all the tests for a god worth believing in, and you belong on the silly step with the evangelists.
|
>>Only if you assume roughly equal - or at least significant - probabilities on both sides of >>the argument, MM.
I do not see why what applies to one side of the argument does not apply to the other side; you appear to be as short sighted as the fundamentalists.
>>By your argument I should also make precautionary devotions to all the Greek, Roman
>>and Norse gods
I suggest that it doesn't matter which god you worship, they are all the same supreme creator. Interestingly most societies have developed similar Gods to worship.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 23 May 11 at 16:51
|
"Interestingly most societies have developed similar Gods to worship"
Well that's exactly right they have developed gods to worship, not discovered their existence. There is an inbuilt need in human beings to find meaning in life even where there actually appear to be none
|
>> is an inbuilt need in human beings to find meaning in life even where there
>> actually appear to be none
Its fear, fear of the unknown. If you make up a "known" to answer the fear and fill the void of "why and how" its all a little more liveable with. It really doesn't matter what you use to fill the "why and how" void, it could be a super donkey, or a spaceman. Me? I am happy to accept science and physics and where there are gaps, I am happy to accept its outside my sphere of influence.
|
|
So, if there is a creator, who created the creator and who created the creator's creator (and so on)?
|
>> who created the creator's creator (and so on)?
Interesting question RR, but the answer is the same ultimately whether you believe in God or some big bang type theory: there comes a certain point where some entity or situation 'just is', so to speak. There seems no way round that without more information or some philosophic contortion that I can't imagine.
|
|
You discover your god and then he/she/it/they develop(s) according to your relationship with your god.
|
>> Similarly without a complete explanation there is no evidence that there is NOT a creator,
>> so to come to a strong belief that there is NOT, shows fundamentally flawed reasoning.
Sorry MM, but it is your reasoning that is flawed. A lack of evidence to disprove a creator is not evidence for a creator.
There is plenty of evidence for most parts of what you might consider creation (formation of stars, galaxies, solar systems, life), so why would you give the creator theory any significant weighting?
>> From the disparaging way you refer to those who believe, it is fairly clear to
>> me that you fall into the second camp. Even if you don't, as you appear
>> not to have ruled His existence out, don't you think you should be a bit
>> nicer to Him just in case He does exist?
You have to plays the odds I suppose. Without a shred of evidence for a creator, and plenty of evidence to support the alternative it seems silly to me to worry too much about the creator being the truth.
|
>>Sorry MM, but it is your reasoning that is flawed. A lack of evidence to disprove a
>>creator is not evidence for a creator.
You are not paying attention. I have never said it is. I have merely said that there is absolutely no evidence for either side. You can no more disprove than prove. Probabilities are irrelevant.
>>Without a shred of evidence for a creator, and plenty of evidence to support the >>alternative
What evidence do you have that there is no god?
>>There is plenty of evidence for most parts of what you might consider creation
>>(formation of stars, galaxies, solar systems, life), so why would you give the creator
>>theory any significant weighting?
You have lost me. You state there is plenty of evidence of creation, but then say I should give no weighting to the creator theory. Arguing both sides is a good old-fashioned way of confusing the other party...
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 24 May 11 at 18:17
|
...confusing the other party...
I suspect lots of other parties are confused by this one.
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 24 May 11 at 18:42
|
>> You are not paying attention. I have never said it is. I have merely said
>> that there is absolutely no evidence for either side. You can no more disprove than
>> prove. Probabilities are irrelevant.
OK, so there is no evidence for the moment of creation of the universe.
On that basis, there is no evidence to suggest that there was a creator. Given a complete lack of evidence, why is it reasonable to believe that there was a creator?
It's not really an issue of probabilities, but rather why you would give any weight to the creator theory, when it also has no evidence.
>> >>There is plenty of evidence for most parts of what you might consider creation
>> >>(formation of stars, galaxies, solar systems, life), so why would you give the creator
>> >>theory any significant weighting?
>>
>> You have lost me. You state there is plenty of evidence of creation, but then
>> say I should give no weighting to the creator theory. Arguing both sides is a
>> good old-fashioned way of confusing the other party...
Let me try to find you again.
What I meant was that when people talk about "creation" (not creationism, but the "creation of the universe"), they might mean the moment of creation, or they might mean how everything got to where it is not (formation of planets, life etc).
If you take it beyond the moment of creation, then there is plenty of evidence for all of those other things.
Intelligent Design advocates, for example, will try to say that maybe a creator is a reasonable explanation, because life is so complicated, whereas there is plenty of evidence to show how life evolved.
|
SS>>OK, so there is no evidence for the moment of creation of the universe.
The Big Bang? (Although I realise that was invented by a Roman Catholic priest (overturning a previous assumption that the universe had always existed), so you probably do not approve of it.)
>>whereas there is plenty of evidence to show how life evolved.
And why is evolution an argument against the existence of god?
|
>> SS>>OK, so there is no evidence for the moment of creation of the universe.
>>
>> The Big Bang?
Well, not really, because nobody knows what caused the Big Bang. The exact moment of creation is the problem, not what happened right after.
If you mean what happened after the very first moment until the moment you appeared on the Earth then, yes, there certainly is plenty of evidence, none of it requiring a creator, and none of it supporting a creator.
>> And why is evolution an argument against the existence of god?
It's not an argument against god. The issue is that there is no argument for god. Some people (including Intelligent Design followers) will try to claim that if you have no evidence (or incomplete evidence) for a theory of evolution, then it provides evidence towards the theory of a creator. It doesn't.
It is that kind of logic that people sometimes fall for.
|
>>Well, not really, because nobody knows what caused the Big Bang.
That's a huge problem for non-believers, then. If that's not a creation event (much as described by many primitive religions) then I don't know what is.
>>if you have no evidence (or incomplete evidence) for a theory of evolution, then it
>>provides evidence towards the theory of a creator. It doesn't.
They would be nuts to try to. There is plenty of evidence for evolution.
>>and none of it supporting a creator.
You cannot say that. Without the creator, then there would have been no evolution.
|
>> >>Well, not really, because nobody knows what caused the Big Bang.
>>
>> That's a huge problem for non-believers, then. If that's not a creation event (much as
>> described by many primitive religions) then I don't know what is.
Why is it a problem, for somebody who doesn't believe in a creator?
It doesn't provide any evidence for a creator.
The majority of people who don't believe in a creator, don't have an alternative theory for the moment of creation, they just see no reason to believe in a creator.
It is the people who want to claim that there is a creator, who would need to provide some evidence. The lack of evidence is a problem for them.
>> >>if you have no evidence (or incomplete evidence) for a theory of evolution, then it
>> >>provides evidence towards the theory of a creator. It doesn't.
>>
>> They would be nuts to try to. There is plenty of evidence for evolution.
Well, they do try. Intelligent Design is a strong part of this. A main thread is that some things in nature could not have been created by evolution (irreducible complexity), and that this therefore suggests design by an "intelligent designer/creator".
It is close to the same argument that because science can't completely explain the creation of the universe, there is support for a creator.
>> >>and none of it supporting a creator.
>> You cannot say that. Without the creator, then there would have been no evolution.
Well, without the creation of the universe (assuming that it was "created" as we understand that to mean), there couldn't have been an evolution, but that doesn't mean that a creator was involved.
So, the fact that we are here (and evolving) is certainly evidence that the universe was created, but no evidence at all of a creator (unless you want to stretch the term creator to include any process that created the universe, rather than just some kind of sentient being).
|
>> now I'm depressed
tinyurl.com/h9dl
|
The world is like a ride in a amusement park.And when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerfull our minds are.
And the ride goes up and down and round and round.It has thrills and chills and it's very brightley coloured and it's very loud and it's fun for a while.Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question is this real or is this just a ride?
And other people have remembered and they come back to us,they say.
Hey don't worry don't be afraid this is just a ride and we kill those people.
Bill Hicks.
|
I attended church yesterday for a family christening, which unfortunately involved having to sit through the normal Sunday service as well.
The urge to shout "No he didn't" every time the vicar said "God created the Earth" was almost overwhelming. ;-)
|
Quote.Some entity or situation just is.Armel Coussine.
And is,it depends what happens in your live and the experiences you have.In my case going right back to being a child there have been to many situations and happenings that I often wonder how the hell am i still here.
Iam not keen on organised religion to many rules and regulations but my gut feeling is that we are spiritual and I feel comfortable with a higher spirit.It gives me strenght and I try to live a way that I feel comfortable with.
|
Everyone knows the universe was, in fact, created by a flying spaghetti monster.
www.venganza.org/
|
|
And you are right Bagpuss it makes it simple and easy to understand.;)
|
I think this puts it very nicely
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_monster
|
|
Oh well, at least we know not to bother ordering winter tyres.
|
|
Drat. I've just taxed my car for a full 12 months...
|
>> Drat. I've just taxed my car for a full 12 months...
tinyurl.com/25ovmk
|
Make the most of it, today is your last day. - CGNorwich
