lol

spider man exists


*mini interlude*
within my heart n sole i kno theres a spiderman out there


*MAIN FEATURE RESUMES*

also the tooth fairy

AlanC83

I'll not respond point by point to your post but the key point is that the fundamentalists are trying to influence the political landscape of the country based on their beliefs. At worst, the things that the fundamentalist believe are simply wrong. At best, the things that the fundamentalists believe are indistinguishable from things that are simply made up. Changing the politics of the country based on a religious belief of this kind (or any kind of religious belief for that matter) is dangerous.

A nicely measured post, Mr.Whizz. It's fortunate that you got in before the more vociferous of our clan spotted it

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
And on the subject of the age of the earth and evolution - when are they going to get round to proving it and taking that annoying "theory" label off it, coz any scientist would have to concede, as likely as it is, it is not fact. The fact we still call it the theory of evolution is a bit of a clue - it might be true, but you cannot possibly claim that it is fact.

A scientific theory is a *fact*. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me. I hope you don't find it so annoying now. The age of the earth has been proved countless times, currently standing at around 4.5 billion years. Having the "opinion" that it is only 6000 years old is just ignorant. Teaching 6000 years as fact to children is tantamount to child abuse.

quote:

But if anyone wants to talk to a fundamental Christian I'd be happy to shatter a few preconceptions.
... people with such strong convictions are not open to debate. You're wrong. Maybe a lot of them aren't, but I am!

Excellent!
Can I start with a question for you? Do you think it is possible to empirically *know* anything for certain (or near as dammit)? Anything at all? You know, stuff like, 'am I sitting on a chair?' 'Does that apple over there actually exist?' If so, what criteria do you use to establish the reliability of this knowledge?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The_Chairmaker:
As for my sig' lets just say I'm a utopian tranhumansist

So what's that, then?
Someone who dresses up in classy women's clothes?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Whizz:
AlanC83

I'll not respond point by point to your post but the key point is that the fundamentalists are trying to influence the political landscape of the country based on their beliefs. At worst, the things that the fundamentalist believe are simply wrong. At best, the things that the fundamentalists believe are indistinguishable from things that are simply made up. Changing the politics of the country based on a religious belief of this kind (or any kind of religious belief for that matter) is dangerous.

And yet, for centuries, the politics of this country truly were, indeed, based upon religious belief.
And during that time, this country was at its most powerful and blessed.
Now that the Prince of Darkness has a stranglehold, do you not perceive that we are being a little more forsaken by the Almighty?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
And yet, for centuries, the politics of this country truly were, indeed, based upon religious belief.
And during that time, this country was at its most powerful and blessed.
Now that the Prince of Darkness has a stranglehold, do you not perceive that we are being a little more forsaken by the Almighty?

I can't tell whether or not you are being serious here. We were at our most powerful as a nation in the middle/late 19th Century as a result of the industrial revolution. That wasn't religiously inspired. We're still pretty powerful as a nation I would suggest. That said, the relative power of nations says nothing about whether the religious beliefs of its inhabitants are true!

As for being blessed, and the Prince of Darkness and being forsaken by the Almighty, this is precisely the sort of superstitious mentality that we should be seeking to break out of and is a good example why religion is the enemy of rational thinking.

Mr Whizz, what sort of beliefs would you have the countries politics based on?
I understand your point, and for the most part I would hold that politics and religion should keep a healthy distance. But also a healthy respect.
When politics starts to directly oppose religion then the passive relationship has been broken and become antagonistic in just as harmful a way as if the religious were actively influencing politics. And when the latter is a defensive action in response to the former then why are the latter being blamed?

I don't think we're so far from seeing eye to eye. I don't mean to thow a blanket over the situation and call the shots. But... (I will anyway!!)
...If you say basing politics on religious beliefs is dangerous then I say that basing it on capitalist beliefs encourages bullies to do what they want;
basing it on dictatorial principles allows one sole bully to call the shots;
basing in on communist ideals allows the corrupt and clevver to get away with murder;
and basing it on democratic ideals just leads to capitalism so what's the point?

Sorry to be so trite! But quite simply, there is no perfect way to rule. The best we can do is maintain a fair balance. And for a truly fair balance then religion needs a voice to make sure it is not undermined. At present, we have to fight to get it and it looks like we're mobilising for civil war - far from it, we're fighting against suffocation!

Man! Get me going and I just type!!
Can you get diarrhoea tablets for a keyboard?

Roy P: I don't mean to start a fight, I would have been the first to post in a friendly way but I had to watch the programme on 4OD and then wait a day to get onto here! Let me know if I miss the mark when I aim for "just as measured" and I love the knowing smile..

Wr Woolf: It's a overdoing it a little to say things like God would have stopped the Columbine massacre if only America still allowed God into schools as I've heard said.

You're definitely on the right lines, the decline isn't unconnected with our steady course away from anything Godly. I wouldn't begin to call it the primary cause though.
Being pedantic, if everyone in the world did truly trust Jesus and live as the Bible lays out then no, there wouldn't be any problems in terms of relationships, politics and the like.
But come on, that's make believe - I can't even manage to walk as a true follower of Christ 24/7 in my own life, we've just got to wait for heaven. The Bible tells us to live in the orld but not to be of it, we're strangers in the world, we will not be accepted but opposed. It's just not meant to happen here and now so let's not push for it eh!

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
Mr Whizz, what sort of beliefs would you have the countries politics based on?

Beliefs that are underpinned by supporting evidence. For example, pushing for anti-abortion legislation (an example used in the programme) because your interpretation of the bible is that abortion is wrong is not a basis for passing a law. If we're going to give respect to this line of argument then we need to also give respect to any group of people that might be pro-abortion because their interpretation of the will of their particular God guides them to that view. Any belief based on a superstition should not be respected in the context of governing a country or setting laws. The arguments pro/anti abortion should be based on what the evidence actually is for the impact on the foetus, the impact on the mother, the happiness or otherwise of families that have had a child that was not allowed to be aborted, tha happiness or otherwise of families that have had an abortion, etc. etc.

Setting laws should be based on evidence based research - not superstitious belief.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
The best we can do is maintain a fair balance. And for a truly fair balance then religion needs a voice to make sure it is not undermined.

So would you accept that all religions need a voice (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Shintoism, Paganism, Roman God belief, Greek God belief, Shamanism, etc. etc.), and believers in fairies need a voice, and believers in astrology need a voice, and believers in any other superstition need a voice and that all these voices should be on a par with evidence based rational research and critical thinking? I completely disagree. All superstitious thinking SHOULD be undermined. We need to get out of the dark ages.

Mr Whizz, the Bible has not changed in content for millenia, there's nothing superstitious about it. It's a book, black and white text, it's easy to read and understand. And the reason for believing it is not simply because it says to, but because having read it you've engaged your mind and find it to be true.
How do you know that you are right?! I am sure I am and taht you're wrong, but to undermine you because of that supposition would be arrogance in the extreme and the only reason that I should not be listened to. I can't see this particular discussion going any further than this, our issues are a little bigger than an hour long TV programme and a discussion board! God bless.

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
Can I start with a question for you? Do you think it is possible to empirically *know* anything for certain (or near as dammit)? Anything at all? You know, stuff like, 'am I sitting on a chair?' 'Does that apple over there actually exist?' If so, what criteria do you use to establish the reliability of this knowledge?

Sorry to be so long, I typed a biggie and the site went down! Doh!

I'll just clarify, I believe the earth itself is eons old as Genisis 1 says it was formless and void, then God defined time in creating light. So it's the life on earth that's 6,000 years old.
We could dance for years if we start discussing evolution et al. I know a dozen disproofs that wouldn't get accepted. Ditto visa versa. What's the point!!

And as I'm gonna say that no, we can't ever truly know anything as there might be something we've not seen or just aren't capable of understanding it kinda doesn't matter anyway!!


What makes fact fact? Something is true, not because we deem it to be so, but because it is. Lucky us if we diagnose it correctly!

The Bible claims to be God's word. God claims to be above us, all knowing and such. All I can do is read the Bible, find it to be true as far as I can tell and thus trust the rest of it that I don't fully understand to be true.

And that's what faith is by the way. Not throwing away reason for fancy, but trusting when reason is exhasuted.


I'd written loads first time. I'd love to go further with that one, dunno, whatever! I've gotta meet someone for lunch now, so take care, chat later.

Best wishes to all, I hope I'm not offending or anything! It's nothing personal if my beliefs directly conflict with yours, I just think you're wrong!!
(yes, I may well be even more wrong, who's to say eh! It'd take someone omniscient to deecide wouldn't it...?)

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Whizz:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
And yet, for centuries, the politics of this country truly were, indeed, based upon religious belief.
And during that time, this country was at its most powerful and blessed.
Now that the Prince of Darkness has a stranglehold, do you not perceive that we are being a little more forsaken by the Almighty?

I can't tell whether or not you are being serious here. We were at our most powerful as a nation in the middle/late 19th Century as a result of the industrial revolution. That wasn't religiously inspired. We're still pretty powerful as a nation I would suggest. That said, the relative power of nations says nothing about whether the religious beliefs of its inhabitants are true!

As for being blessed, and the Prince of Darkness and being forsaken by the Almighty, this is precisely the sort of superstitious mentality that we should be seeking to break out of and is a good example why religion is the enemy of rational thinking.

Well, I would hardly joke about things like this, would I?

It has to be the most spectacular con trick since time began, for Satan to make the world believe that he doesn't exist, and that everything is just a coincidence!
Do you not see his influence pervading every aspect of modern day life: The laws which are passed, almost daily, denying the sanctity and dignity of human life: The increasing acceptance of foreign cusoms and religions, whilst marginalising, ridiculing and denying Christianity: Do you not see the connection? Do you think that it is a coincidence that Christianity should suddenly come under fire from all sides, when it has been so established for millennia?

My footnote applies particularly here.....

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
Mr Whizz, the Bible has not changed in content for millenia, there's nothing superstitious about it. It's a book, black and white text, it's easy to read and understand. And the reason for believing it is not simply because it says to, but because having read it you've engaged your mind and find it to be true.

If you ignore the world around us then it's not hugely surprising that someone might think the bible might be true. But once you actually look at how the world works, get a basic understanding of physics, chemistry and biology, and actually start trying to check out the claims/statements in the bible to help understand whether or not the claims/statements are true, you'll find that they're either plain wrong (in terms of age of earth, creation of life, etc. etc.) or indistinguishable from something that it simply made up (any of the miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. etc.)

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
How do you know that you are right?! I am sure I am and taht you're wrong, but to undermine you because of that supposition would be arrogance in the extreme and the only reason that I should not be listened to.

This is precisely my point. I don't know for certain that I'm right but I can point to lots and lots of corroborative evidence that supports my particular view of the world. For you to assert that I'm wrong merely because of a supposition on your part that is NOT supported by any corroborative evidence....indeed is actually contradicted by most objective evidence....is worse than arrogant.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
The Bible claims to be God's word. God claims to be above us, all knowing and such. All I can do is read the Bible, find it to be true as far as I can tell and thus trust the rest of it that I don't fully understand to be true.

No. That's absolutely NOT all you can do. What you can do is check out other potential explanations for how the world is and see which ones stack up and which ones don't.....and (and this is key) understand why you believe which ones stack up and which ones don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Whizz:
Once you actually look at how the world works, get a basic understanding of physics, chemistry and biology, and actually start trying to check out the claims/statements in the bible to help understand whether or not the claims/statements are true, you'll find that they're either plain wrong (in terms of age of earth, creation of life, etc. etc.) or indistinguishable from something that it simply made up (any of the miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. etc.)

I'd be interested to know why you regard those things as proofs that the stories aren't true. I take them to be proofs! John recorded Jesus' miracles calling them signs. Jesus said, recorded in John 14:11, regarding themiracles and other works He did "believe because of the works."

I'd point you to Frank Morison (a psuedonym, but google will find him!), a journalist, writer and historian who set out to disprove the resurrection and ended up writing "Who Moved the Stone" about why it is true.
Simon Greenleaf was a leading legal mind who similarly set out to disprove the resurrection and ended up committing his life to Jesus.
The apostle Paul said that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then we are to be pitied above all men, our preaching is useless and so is our faith. Christianity stands and falls on that point - it has never been disproved. Rather a british high court judge (I forget his name, sorry!) said that the evidence for it is so overwhelming that any jury would be compelled to find it to be true.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Whizz:
No. That's absolutely NOT all you can do. What you can do is check out other potential explanations for how the world is and see which ones stack up and which ones don't.....and (and this is key) understand why you believe which ones stack up and which ones don't.

You misunderstand me, I'm sorry if was not clear enough. Beyond all those things you mention, when the Bible still holds up as true, then I put my faith in God. I have done all you say, I still do, and it still stands.

You must concede that if God is who the Bible says then it is all potentially true. Within itself the whole argument works. And I have found nothing outside of it to contradict it or prove it wrong.
I doubt I ever will - that's my faith. But I hope I would not be blind to evidence that seemed to prove it wrong and treat it properly. Please, give me specifics! Although I doubt this will prgress as there simply isn't the space here to go far enough into issues.

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
Sorry to be so long, I typed a biggie and the site went down! Doh!

Sorry to hear that. This site often does that: much better to write your text in a text editor then copy and paste to the site when finished. That way you can go back and repost it if necessary.

quote:

... I'm gonna say that no, we can't ever truly know anything as there might be something we've not seen or just aren't capable of understanding it kinda doesn't matter anyway!!

OK, that pretty much rules you out for any meaningful debate. If your world view is based on the notion that we can never really know, then I'm afraid you're operating inside a closed, woolly box and you'll never find anything out. You're pretty much living in the middle ages. You'll never find out, for example, that matter is made of atoms, what the speed of light is, how living organisms actually work, how far away the moon is, how many elements there are, what the sun is made of, how radioactive decay works.
These are all facts. They're all true. They're not going to change, ever. The only thing that might change is that we may gain a deeper understanding of certain aspects of them, but the basic empirical facts are there forever, just as 2+2 will always equal 4.
You presumably dispute all these things? A non-religious person, when confronted with such facts, will ooh and aah a bit, ask questions, and if interested, find out some more. They'll perhaps find out how evolution works, or how we can date the earth, or measure distances to heavenly bodies. As a religious person, you are limited to chaining yourself to myths written down thousands of years ago by desert nomads and therefore you must parrot the 6000 year line. Does that seem sensible? What about slaughtering your children if they misbehave? Or stoning someone to death for working on the sabbath? Do you subscribe to those "opinions" too?

quote:

All I can do is read the Bible, find it to be true as far as I can tell and thus trust the rest of it that I don't fully understand to be true.

Why do you think that is true and not the Koran? Or Lord of the Rings? What does "as far as I can tell" mean? You say above that you can't be sure if *anything* is true, so how come you "can tell" here? What criteria do you use?

quote:

And that's what faith is by the way. Not throwing away reason for fancy, but trusting when reason is exhasuted.

Would you say that someone who is better at reasoning needs less faith? Or doesn't need to rely on faith until much later down the line? What would you call "trusting when personal knowledge is exhausted"?

By the way you can be as gung ho as you like with me, I won't get offended in the slightest. Much more likely to be the other way around

quote:

Originally posted by AlanC83:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr Whizz:
John recorded Jesus' miracles calling them signs. Jesus said, recorded in John 14:11, regarding themiracles and other works He did "believe because of the works."
I'd point you to Frank Morison (a psuedonym,

You do realise that John is a psuedonym too? You do realise that John was written around the turn of the 1st Century, at least 60 years after Jesus died? (The *earliest* gospel wasn't written until 65).

quote:

You must concede that if God is who the Bible says then it is all potentially true. Within itself the whole argument works. And I have found nothing outside of it to contradict it or prove it wrong.

That's because you haven't asked any questions. Here are some:
Who made God?
Why does God allow suffering?
Why do you never pray to God to do something extra-ordinary?
Why won't he heal amputees?
Why is there no evidence for God's existence outside of your head?
Why can't the Gospel writers agree on Jesus' parentage, or the year he was born?
Why are the resurrection accounts contradictory?
Do you really think Jerusalem was full of zombies during the crucifiction?
How did there manage to be a 3-hour eclipse covering the whole world during passover (hint: astronomically impossible)
And best of all, (and that includes the impossible stuff ), why is there no historical evidence for the existence of an earthly Jesus? The judge that you quote was simply deluding himself - there is no evidence. You just try and find some - you'll win a prize if you turn up anything other than the dodgy mentions in Josephus. Kinda funny how God can walk the earth for 30 years and leave no historical trace whatsoever.

Sorry if this seems a little full-on, but you might as well have both barrels (in the nicest possible way, of course).

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
OK, that pretty much rules you out for any meaningful debate.... You'll never find out, for example, that matter is made of atoms, what the speed of light is, how living organisms actually work, how far away the moon is, how many elements there are, what the sun is made of, how radioactive decay works.

Okay, sorry, I was answering in philosophical mode!
We might one day find something smaller than atoms, er, wait, than neutron et al. My mum worked as a chemistry teacher just after they discovered the atom and loves telling how hard an older collegue found it all!

I do hold that there are fact, absolutely. You can't stand in front of a bus speeding and say you won't die coz you don't believe it's real. I can't say that your 2 is my 3 and I get 5. If God is real, He's real and you're wrong. If he's not then I'm wrong. So yes, facts exist absolutely.

And yes, we can know them, we can discover them. Whether we know them or not doesn't affect their existence. And we may unltimately be wrong.

I don't dispute atoms, the speed of light, how organisms work (mechanically speaking!), how far away the moon is or the number of elements (potentially much larger when you start engineering synthetic and useless metals at the end of it of course...). I would say we don't know what the sun is made of though, there are a few theroies and the only way to choose seems to be by guessing how old it needs to be for each theory to work.
And radioactive decay is fine by me, that's one of the proofs of the age of life on earth if you rate the decay in the sun's radiation and extrapolate backwards - it gets unlivable if you go more than a few thousand years.
(don't start on carbon dating by the way, it's is ridiculously unreliable and demands that we assume we know the C12 to C14 ratio present in the creature's body when it died. You don't even have to believe in the flood to negate that, I'm sure coal burning in the 19th century did that enough! He he!)

quote:

You are limited to chaining yourself to myths written down thousands of years ago by desert nomads and therefore you must parrot the 6000 year line. Does that seem sensible?

My peers do me a disservice! I get the 6,000 years from adding it up myself. 1,500ish from creation to the flood, 2,500 to Christ, we know it from there!
I see mount St Helens creating a mini grand canyon in two days with mud cutting the canyon where we assumed it was water and see that the flood could be quite likely.
I then see the strata of rock in the grand canyon that are bent with no crack and I know that rock doesn't bend, so all the strata must have been pliable at the same time when the movement occured. Again, it fits nicely with this flood I read about!

It seems as sensible as saying billions of years when we can't really know either scientifically as we can't observe, repeat and record any of it! I know those two little tidbits will be like water off a duck's back with you, I'm not trying to win an argument or convince you to recant (I'd love to talk to you about Jesus but this medium is hardly condusive!!). I simply want to say it is not irrational and show how a sentient being can believe it!

quote:

What about slaughtering your children if they misbehave? Or stoning someone to death for working on the sabbath? Do you subscribe to those "opinions" too?

Come on! Cheap shot!! Paul explains the new covenant quite nicely in Romans, Hebrews does it even better (I reckon Barnabas wrote that). I'm happy to debate issues within Christianity, but you've missed the mark by a long way there - either that or you know some pretty misguided "christians" where you are!

quote:

Why do you think (the Bible) is true and not the Koran? Or Lord of the Rings? What does "as far as I can tell" mean? You say above that you can't be sure if *anything* is true, so how come you "can tell" here? What criteria do you use?

The only way to tell is to read it and find out. I've read the whole thing a few times, studied chunks of it, read commentaries and critiques. I couldn't comment on the Koran but I know a lot of people that could, my wife works in a charity involved with Muslims so I could find out if you like!

As far as I can tell means what it says. I will not ignore any evidence, I will examine and think through everything as much as I can and use any resources I can, but we all reach our limits. As far as I can tell is being as sure as I can be and hoping that I've not overlooked anything or unknowingly misunderstood. Same as we all do, but some of us aren't quite so open to the possibility that we're wrong, and some place a little too much faith in numbers of people. I'm not going to say that we never landed on the moon and spout conspiracy rubbish, but a lot of people may still be genuinely wrong about a lot of things! Maybe not science itself, but inturpretation of the ramifications most definitely.

quote:

Would you say that someone who is better at reasoning needs less faith?

It's not a straight line measure. Those with more analitical minds may need more faith to believe the supernatural claims. Concepts such as eternity past, the trinity and such simply can't be understood anyway! We all need faith, I don't think we understand what faith is if we try and quantify it or measure it.

quote:

By the way you can be as gung ho as you like with me, I won't get offended in the slightest. Much more likely to be the other way around

Ha ha! A challenge! Nah, I don't set out to offend, that'd be stupid and drive people away! And I doubt you'd actually offend me, PC annoys me!