Cattivo wrote:

Alowishus wrote: Don't expect any respect to be given. I try to be civil on the subject...

Your reading comprehension has failed you sir. That is if you are trying to imply a contradiction between the two sentences.

LeshLush wrote:

First, I would argue that the idea that science and religion, or at least science and Christianity, are at odds with each other is a not a very strong one. I don't believe in a young earth. I do believe that evolution occurs and has occurred. That said, I also believe in God and in the Bible's truth claims about Jesus Christ.

I don't find any particular issue with that. I have no problem with belief in Christ or God. I do however have an issue with the "stories" told by Christ which pretty much defy the laws that govern the universe. If you take the stories and the parables of Christ as such aka stories with lessons which can be learnt from them then there is no problem and they are even good lessons hence morals. The problem is when people try to claim that basically magic or other supernatural forces exist such as parting basically oceans. That can be tested scientifically and there was no possible way for it to occur and the Noahs Ark example, there is no way that the earth was ever covered in that amount of water. A simple of explanation of how that didn't occur is simply that the earth is an open system with changes of energy and different outputs. If the earth was covered in water it would have to have went somewhere yet under the hydrological cycle it hasn't.

The implications that these stories have are fine - and they are just stories in that respect. I doubt that they Noahs Ark ever actually occurred or basically much of the rest of the old testament. The New Testament is different in that Christ has a historical record in existing. There is no actual physical evidence to state that any of the old testament big earth changing events actually happened. Especially if under that consideration that the earth was 6000 years old. The changes would be clearly evident.

LeshLush wrote:

I also think that it's unfortunate that our culture has reached the conclusion that being wrong is inherently wrong. Just because someone I know believes that the Earth is is only 6,000 years old does not give me moral superiority over them.

That is a two way process. Just because Christians think they are right doesn't mean they have the superiority to claim that a country is in fact a Christian Nation and that everyone within that country should live by their rules and i believe the USA has that issue. I would wager if the Christians had an opportunity and were placed in power that they would probably denounce all atheists.

The thing is that hasn't happened to the best of my knowledge in the USA though there has been potential.

Quote:

I asked Mr. Bush, "What are you going to do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?" Mr. Bush replied, "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me." I followed up: "Do you support the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" Mr. Bush replied, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

In my country however the Christians waltz about thinking they own the place.

Fun Fact: Until the early 2000s in Northern Ireland nothing and i mean NOTHING was allowed to open on Sunday. Not even a general store because the Free-Presbyterian church within which many of its members sit in the right wing Democratic Unionist Party stated that it was a holy day.

Sorry what's that i hear? It's the big fuck you to all non-Christians who want to go about their lives without being controlled. I don't give two fucks if it's your holy day, it's not my holy day. There is a big problem with religion and politics and it really needs straightened out. If you want a good example of this. Hop over to the News in Ireland thread and read the news there. All that news is due to the mixing of religion and politics.

When i spoke about respect above this is what i mean. Don't expect respect in this case. I don't mean going up to Christians really and being like FUCK YOU MAN YOUR WRONG. I mean this is an issue which will not get tread over softly and we won't all be kind and pleasant about the words. I said that i am being civil in that i am not sitting here going fuck you and refusing to discuss the issue and that i am right. I am not flaming you, you are entitled to believe what you wish. I have stated that i find that not believing something when evidence is clearly before you is stupid and that those people who disagree despite said evidence are stupid. You can still believe that a flood covered this whole earth despite contradicting evidence but i will think you are stupid because of it.
I don't mean you are a horrible person or i dislike you i just think you are stupid with those regards. Hell i've met people who are a lot more intelligent than me and believe in biblical facts and i point it out and still call them stupid. Don't take this personal.

I am waiting in this thread to come upon something which will make me go, oh you got me there but it's still yet to come. Again science doesn't try to disprove religion. There is hypothesis in every piece of research which states that religion must be shat on from a great height. It's just the fact that we can even point out even using Christians own religious texts the contradictions within their own religion that it boggles my mind as to how people still just shrug it off and keep on merrily dancing along that beaten road.

I will continue this here..

LeshLush wrote:

I also don't think it's fair to call someone an idiot or "full of shit" just because they don't agree with something that is seemingly obvious and rational to everyone else. One of my favorite philosophers, W. V. O. Quine describes a basis for forming ontologies that he calls the web of belief, where the things we hold to most closely are at the center, and these beliefs are changed last, after the beliefs at the further out. For instance, say I believe that only humans can learn languages and communicate with them, and then someone shows me a chimpanzee that uses sign language. My initial response is to say that the chimpanzee can't really use sign language, but once it's proven to me that it can, I do my best to disrupt as little of my web of beliefs as possible. Therefore, I'm almost certainly going to change the less central belief "Only humans use language" instead of tearing the whole web asunder, pointing at the chimp, and yelling "That thing's a human!" For various reasons, most of them emotional, many Christians hold certain non-scientific beliefs fairly far into the center of their webs. This doesn't mean that they're irrational, stupid, or idiots. It's means that they are mistaken, and that their ontology hold some things in higher regard than other people's ontologies do. And because this is a pretty large subset of the population, maybe some of them are fairly far from intelligent, but since when is lacking intelligence a moral wrong?

Okay i cannot argue against philosophy or this but at least it's evidence and it was thought provoking. I will say however i am talking about actual practical science. Philosophy to me can sometimes have limited uses. I took a class in philosophy in my first year of university. It was explained and argued to me how through Hume's reasoning that causation does not exist. It was a totally valid argument and it made perfect sense however the fact is that causation does exist but theoretically it made sense. In that respect philosophy i think can be limited in how it can be used.

I also never said that lacking intelligence is a moral wrong. I am sure there is an argument somewhere with regards to reason in how it is defined philosophically that i could provide against this but i have no time to search for one lol. I will argue that in that theory that although people hold their religious beliefs over science i would wager that in some cases that people didn't understand what is being said. This also does not account for when people outright refuse to believe the facts that they are presented. I would also think that holding beliefs which are not factual over actual facts is ultimately very strange.

LeshLush wrote:

I'd also like to point out that just because a story from the Bible did not literally happen does not mean that the story is necessarily "wrong." The Bible is a text filled with many different kinds of genres and works that were written in many different cultural contexts, and that should have a large bearing on how certain parts of the Bible are to be interpreted. This idea is not just something that post-modernist Christian theologians thought up because they were scared of losing their religion. It's an idea with very ancient roots. St. Augustine, one of the fathers of Western Christianity and one of the most influential thinkers in the early church, did not believe in a literal six day creation. Long before scientific evidence was used to cast doubt on the book of Genesis, he argued that the story of creation was poetic and metaphorical on theological grounds. Judaism has long regarded the story of Noah's flood as allegorical of the nation of Israel. The Bible itself also offers metaphorical interpretations of certain passages. The Epistles of Peter describe the flood as talking about both the Church, and about baptism. One the chief themes of the gospels is that no one understood that Jesus did not come as a literal conqueror, which confused his followers who took a literal reading of messianic prophecies.

Well i've already touched on this above ^

If you really wanted to open the flood gates you could say "in my interpretation of the Bible that it was God that set off the Big Bang".

I've seen arguments from Christians that God is everywhere and i asked them well did God create that mountain, as i point to a mountain and they say yes.

The thing with this thinking is that it was probably acceptable like i said hundreds of years ago. There is no reason for God to be in the equation now. We know why that mountain is there and it is backed up by geological understanding.

LeshLush wrote:

Alowishus, I'd like to address a few of your snarky pictures, at the risk of not understanding chess, knocking your pieces off the board, crapping on the table, and acting like this post is a checkmate.

Okay i never "acted like it was a checkmate". I stated that this is what happens and it does happen. What else do you want me to say? Evidence is presented to Christians and they do not listen to that evidence so in that respect it is like playing chess with a pigeon. You play your first move and the pigeon flaps about not knowing how to play and disregards the game of chess. It's the exact same thing but described in a ridiculous manner. I did state at the beginning of the first image that these are used because it gets the point across and not because they are brilliant arguments or anything.

LeshLush wrote:

You also have a picture showing the complexities of the scientific method, which is compared to a picture of religions with a straight line, "we'll believe this forever!" epistemological method. While theology hardly follows the scientific method, I would argue that a lot of theological divides within Christianity came about because of a quest for truth and a desire to get things right. Also, there has been a vast ecumenical movement within Christianity wherein various strains of belief acknowledge what we have in common and come together to express kinship. Just because we don't have unity doesn't mean we can't have harmony in our diversity. It's also a gross mischaracterization of the state of the world to try to claim that there aren't multiple schools of thought within various scientific fields that aren't vitriolic towards each other. If you doubt that, go to a conference on the philosophy of mind and listen to functionalists, behaviorists, and emergentists damn each other to hell.

I will point out that i actually disagree with the quote below the photograph. I was taught philosophy of the mind in my philosophy class mentioned above (however not a lot of (if any) philosophy is science) and i am totally aware of the differences in opinion.

The scientific fields i am addressing are ones which are relevant to the topic of religion. Within earth science there is very little debate over the origins of the universe. Not too many scientists disagree as well on the Big Bang.

I am not stating that there isn't disagreement, of course there is. However there is no point talking about some random scientific debate which has nothing to do with this topic. What i am getting that is a lot of the challenges that religion makes to science is already accepted scientific knowledge and there is very little debate within science over these matters aka age of the earth is not debated, evolution is not debated. These are accepted scientific facts.

One of the only things which is related to the creation of the universe which is obviously a religious issue is probably the debate over string theory and loop quantum gravity in creating the overall model for modern physics which includes general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Hacker i'll comment on yours later. My 3DS has been sitting on while i play NSMB2 lol.

Cattivo wrote:

Alowishus wrote: Cattivo wrote: Alowishus wrote: Don't expect any respect to be given. I try to be civil on the subject... Your reading comprehension has failed you sir. That is if you are trying to imply a contradiction between the two sentences. I was expressing my disapproval of both statements.

Ah okay.

Cattivo wrote:

It appears to me, that because you have grown up in the middle of a Protestant/Catholic struggle, you have developed a very negative opinion of religion. This is certainly understandable in that context.

You are quite right in this respect. A lot of people my age are very critical of the violence that goes on now. It hasn't really went away as seen in the news thread.

Cattivo wrote:

However, two points: One, the troubles were/are also political in nature. So, I hope you also have a negative opinion of the old imperial/colonial structure and its remnants in the modern era. Perhaps you would then support the ongoing Scottish attempts at independence/devolution? I believe you might have discussed that issue in the past, but I forget right now.

Yeah i mentioned it my post up there at some point. It is both a political and religious issue. It's also a cultural issue which i hear a lot now. I would disagree on the grounds of this. I'm sure i don't need to explain any of this to you but it aids me in discussing it.

The Catholics obviously have united Ireland and relate to Irish culture but the Protestants and the continuation of ties to Britain don't really have a culture or at least one that i am aware of.

Like if you look at English culture in which they align so closely to there is none of this dancing around the maypole or any of that here - like if you watched the Olympics is the best way to explain this. Although it was UK which hosted it, all cultural stuff depicted in the opening ceremony was English culture (that's one reason why there is a lot of England hate in this country that they don't really care about us as a country).

Americans from what i have noticed generally don't help the case. When i see them refer to Britain they usually mean England. Not to mention that Britain does not include Northern Ireland. Like the English do it too. Like i was saying to Woodzy about this a while back. The Olympics again. If you follow tennis you will know Andy Murray. He's a Scottish tennis player. In the commentary of the matches during the Olympics. If he was winning he was regarded as English and losing he was Scottish. This below is pretty much what the English tend to do.


So yeah they don't really have a culture apart from the protestant working class generally worked the shipyards here so it would be a protestant workforce who built the Titanic and stuff like that. That's about it really.

With regards to the imperial and colonial structures. I know you studied history so the historical element of this may interest you. However when people today discuss the troubles and conflict between Catholics and Protestants a lot of the historical element does not come into it.

Though you are correct. It was more a religious conflict probably during the Ulster Plantation and throughout the English occupation of Ireland.

It became more political probably when Ulster having a large protestant proportion decided to remain with Britain following the Irish independence from Britain. Obviously forming ROI and NI as we know it today. Then obviously the roles of Sinn Fein and i guess IRA in wanting the reunification of Ireland.

Although Catholic and Protestant are assigned to each of the sides in reality it is not particularly a religious issue though churches are involved. It's pro Britain and pro ROI. You do not have to be religious to support either of those. I am not Catholic yet i support a United Ireland and in fact i am from a working class Protestant family. Within this although i am from a Protestant family i do not recognise myself as one. I recognise myself as an Atheist. It's the way to really stay out of the conflicts in this country. On more than one occasion in my life i have been stopped by gangs of men who ask you "what are you?". I find that's the best answer.

The real historical aspects of this come in when they talk about the Battle of the Boyne and the celebrations on the 12th: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_boyne#Commemoration_of_the_battle
They are really just sectarian celebrations and pretty much a middle finger to the Catholics.

But yes to basically answer your question. I condone all the violence. It's stupid and they need to wise up over it. It's easier said than done however.

I don't particularly have a view on the Scottish independence as i haven't been following it too closely. The biggest concern for them is whether the Scottish economy will be able to support the nation.

Although here it is only thought of as being United Ireland or UK if you look at recent polls in this country there is actually a number calling for the existence of Northern Ireland as it's own independent country.

The fear is the same for here as there i guess. We rely heavily on UK for support and the Irish Republic seems to regard us as a financial burden even though there is some incentive to get us back. With regards to the Republics view on the conflict i have friends from the Republic and they are really just like we don't care and it's up to you guys to work it out. Though there is still sectarian violence down in the Republic and interest groups for United Ireland down there.

Really it's just the English. Even the Scottish have their history of turmoil with the English.

Quote:

Two, because the segment of Christians on your island have been mired in a religious feud when the rest of western civilization no longer participates in open intra-Christian warfare, is no reason to view Christians or the religious in general in a negative way. Yes, fundamentalist Christians are a hindrance (not only to knowledge but to the aspirations of my political party), and yes, fundamentalist muslims have sparked another religious conflict; but, there are many reasonable people in every faith, including many of the people who have been posting in this thread. Disclaimer: I do not mean to disparage the Irish people. I have a small fraction of Irish blood in me as well, and have an affinity for their culture.

Well there is still some feuding in the Republic and indeed in areas of Scotland - a lot of Scottish tend to come over for parades etc.

It has to be appreciated that although the situation in this country does effect my viewpoint that there are other factors which effect my beliefs aka having gone to church for 15 years, having been brought up in a family where scientific understanding about the earth was often discussed and just using my own personal reasoning.

I maybe haven't made myself clear on this. I do disagree with extremism on all accounts. There are Christians who i have no problem with. I have no problem with the Christians who accept Jesus, follow Christian morals, go to Church on Sunday and accept evolution or whatever other scientific teachings. The ones who don't accept science are where the problems for me lie and it's not even them as people who are a problem for me. They can be perfectly nice people it's just i strongly disagree with their view that creationism is correct.

I mean no offence to everyone in this thread. Like i stated above somewhere i am not attacking you or forcing you to change your lifestyle. It's your life believe what you want. I'm merely just saying my thoughts on this matter. After all it was them who responded to me! But lets not make this pointing fingers. I'm just saying.

and it's no sweat Cattivo. Though to be fair you can say Ireland is shit or whatever you want. You find with we Irish and hell you've seen on this forum, we tend to get mad, fight it out and then make up and go for pints after.

Syd Lexia wrote:

Alowishus wrote: I was going to post the image here of how atheists and christians would react if proof came into existence that God didn't exist. As i can't find that image i'll paraphrase it until it comes to light. On the atheist side they are like "oh we knew it all along life goes on" however on the christian side. It is them going mad, burning shit, shooting people on the streets. They have no God ergo no morals and no consequences for doing bad shit. How fantastic for you that you believe you can accurately predict how large sections of the population would act in plausible situations. You should take your crystal ball to the race track. Make sure you bet your life savings on your first prediction.

It was to illustrate a point. I see you failed to realise that.

Syd Lexia wrote:

I think what you fail to realize is that Creationism is a minority idea within the broader scope of Christianity as a whole. You have all these banal, plagiarized opinions about how all Christians supposedly think, and you are simply wrong. Do you know what the Catholic Church's official stance on the Bible is? That it is "not a science book". That is a direct quote from Pope Benedict. The New Testament is a collection of tales, parables, and historical events meant to inspire us to be better people.

Wow i don't even know where to begin on this trainwreck of a response.

Firstly you clearly haven't read the rest of my posts. I'd advise you to do so before you throw your hissy fit onto the page. Secondly you don't know two fucking things about me, my life, what it's like living in this country or anything. Plagiarized opinions? I fucking laugh in your face. I was raised a Methodist, i attended my local church for approximately 15 years. I think i know what i am talking about dumbass.

I thought that you would know being your fucking forum that being an American forum when someone who is a non-American posts on here that what they talk about will NOT be from an American perspective.

Sydlexia you do not have the first fucking clue about Christianity in Northern Ireland from which i base my viewpoints on.

You fucking march over here and tell that to the Free Presbyterian church in Northern Ireland that a minority believe in creationism.

I thought you would know who they are considering they have churches in USA for them. Maybe you'd like to take a look: http://www.freepres.org/about.asp

Here's a quote:

Quote:

Believing the Bible to be the verbally inspired and infallible Word of God, we hold it to be the final authority for all our belief and practice. We acknowledge the Bible's revelation of God as One who is absolutely sovereign, preaching that "salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9). As Presbyterians, we adhere to the exposition of Scripture doctrine that is set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Articles of Faith of the Free Presbyterian Church

INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD. Maybe i should make that a bit clearer. THE BIBLE IS RIGHT.

Quote:

Christianity is the main religion in Northern Ireland. The 2001 UK census showed 40.3% Roman Catholic, 20.7% Presbyterian Church, with the Church of Ireland having 15.3% and the Methodist Church 3.5%

20% at the largest Protestant denomination is hardly a minority. Not to mention at my church which was Methodist the bible was taken as LITERAL.

Yes i am aware that there has been statements from the Pope regarding the acceptance of science. Maybe if you read the rest of my fucking posts you'd understand my stance on the issue, especially the parts where i stated numerous times that the stories from the Bible are a-okay by my part.

Syd Lexia wrote:

But the Church has supported incorrect ideas in the past, despite observable evidence to the contrary! That's true. But the railroading of Galileo was nearly 400 years ago. And that was largely for political reasons and not for religious or scientifc reasons. Historically, the major religions were slow to accept new science, but eventually begrudgingly did. Historically, scientists were overzealous in their attempts to push new ideas forward before they are fully tenable. It is a yin/yang relationship.

I have discussed all this, if you read it.

I don't care if this is your site Sydlexia, if you reply to me in a clearly dickish way i will reply back to you in that manner. If you ban me i don't even care, i will not be treated like shite. I have explicitly stated my points in this thread and that no hard feelings should be taken from it. I was not being an asshole about this. If you want to make it that way so be it.

Bob Dylan`s Blues wrote:

Will everyone please stop arguing with Alow. Don't you guys realize how wrong you are about everything always?

Right that's it. I am fucking sick to death of people on this forum. I state my points in a perfectly civil manner. I state them numerous times so they are clear and go out of my fucking way to make sure they are clear and people understand them.

I have targeted no one in this thread or on this site. I have stated that no disrespect should be taken or nothing should be taken personally i am remaining civil.

However time and time again i post my thoughts in threads. MY OPINIONS and they are constantly shit on by people, be it on any topic.

I don't give two fucks how controversial you think they are. They are my opinions yet it is always me who is targeted.

I could post in a thread and people could give the most batshit insane response and my response would be ripped apart and i would be treated like a piece of shit. I have no problems with anyone on this forum yet there always seems to be a problem with me to which i am treated like a retard.

"Oh Alow calm down he's only being sarcastic". Maybe sarcasm is something which is taken lightly in the USA. In my country it is condescending and intended as hurtful, why exactly would i just brush that off? It is a direct and immediate threat against me yet i am told to fucking cool it off.

Time and time again this happens to me on here and i thought i was crazy at first but now it seems to be more clear. There is an anti-European sentiment on these forums.

Any opinion i have is generally from a European standpoint and anytime i give such an opinion i am greeted with "HURR DURR ALOWISHUS KNOWS EVERYTHING, HE'S SUCH A FUCKING RETARD, HE THINKS CAUSE HE'S EUROPEAN HE'S SO MORAL AND RIGHT".

I can fucking post messages from this forum which even state that.

You can't talk to me in a civil manner and i am clearly not welcome here.

Let me just state that i never said i was right about everything, i know comparatively nothing it's just my thoughts on an issue which apparently i am not allowed to give without being treated like shit.

Hacker haven't i stated enough. I am not upset, i am not mad, i never EVER get mad on this forum until people treat me like shit. I am merely replying to your posts. I am annoyed because i am fucking treated like shit on this forum and that people are calling me an idiot without even knowing anything about relationship with this topic. People can also not appreciate that there may be different circumstances and views on this topic. Did it ever occur that Christianity in the USA is say different to that in Europe?

and finally Hacker if you actually decided to fucking put one and one together you may conclude (or even read when i explicitly stated it in an earlier post) that i know since science can't prove God that there is a possibility he may exist. I outright fucking stated that at one point.

Actually fuck your whole reply Hacker it's such a trainwreck i don't even know where to begin in it and i don't mean that i am right in anyway. No what i mean is i have fucking clarified every point in your post and you have failed to fucking take it into consideration when it is on the fucking screen in front of you. If you can't read the words off the page then it's your own fucking problem. I have stated again and again that it is not personal and you still think i am calling people dicks. Fuck me.

Take care.