Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.

ShowMeTheCash

lazygal wrote: »

Or they do research into complex areas like cancer research and useful stuff like that, you know stuff that might help people?

Possibly, they could equally work for a tobacco company working out the best way to poison people

Sarky

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Cool what kind of scientist are you? I have never actually met anyone that calls themselves a scentist! Very broad statement, bit like saying your a human!

The more degrees you pick up, the broader it can get. Take your pick, I've a qualification in all the below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbiology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology


Most people who work in science tend to call themselves scientists. They tend to follow the evidence, and have a very specific meaning of 'theory' that doesn't really match what you seem to think it is.

endacl

Sarky wrote: »

The more degrees you pick up, the broader it can get. Take your pick, I've a qualification in all the below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbiology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology


Most people who work in science tend to call themselves scientists. They tend to follow the evidence, and have a very specific meaning of 'theory' that doesn't really match what you seem to think it is.

Dude! You could make a tiny aquatic cyborg! Do it!

Sarky

Curses! You figured out that was my long term plan all along! <shakes fist>

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

They sit on boards all day and call themselves academics

Excuse me?

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Agreed, many Vikings died thinking they would go to Valhala, who am I to say otherwise!

You are taking the point of view that the bible cannot be factually correct therefore none of it is valid.

Therefore none of it is valid to be called the revealed word of a creator-god, nor a valid text upon which to base morals or systems of government, as some in this crazy old world of ours are wont to do.

People can believe every word of it, from humans having been created both after and before all the animals in Genesis to the alleged fiery world-death in Revelation, if it pleases them. But the second they use it to justify oppression, misogyny, and the attempt to force Christian ideals and morality on people who are not Christian then we have a problem.

ShowMeTheCash

Sarky wrote: »

The more degrees you pick up, the broader it can get. Take your pick, I've a qualification in all the below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbiology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology


Most people who work in science tend to call themselves scientists. They tend to follow the evidence, and have a very specific meaning of 'theory' that doesn't really match what you seem to think it is.

Look I am going to make a guess and say you probably done a BSc in Marine Science which encompases the four disiplines above or at least touches on them...

I doubt very much you speak for the BSc community.

Besides this is history we are talking about, people can theorise as much as they want... Unless you have a time machine?

ShowMeTheCash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Excuse me?

Your excused.

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Look I am going to make a guess and say you probably done a BSc in Marine Science which encompases the four disiplines above or at least touches on them...

I doubt very much you speak for the BSc community.

Besides this is history we are talking about, people can theorise as much as they want... Unless you have a time machine?

I have a PhD in that.

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Your excused.

You arn't.

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

Therefore none of it is valid to be called the revealed word of a creator-god, nor a valid text upon which to base morals or systems of government, as some in this crazy old world of ours are wont to do.

People can believe every word of it, from humans having been created both after and before all the animals in Genesis to the alleged fiery world-death in Revelation, if it pleases them. But the second they use it to justify oppression, misogyny, and the attempt to force Christian ideals and morality on people who are not Christian then we have a problem.

Not everyone that decides to believe in the bible is attempting to justify oppression, misogyny, and the attempting to force Christian ideals and morality on people....

I think this is a very extreme view!

ShowMeTheCash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You arn't.

I did not ask to be excused :P

ShowMeTheCash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have a PhD in that.

In History or Marine Science?

SebBerkovich

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You arn't.

Just don't bother with 'em Bannasidhe, not worth your time.

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Not everyone that decides to believe in the bible is attempting to justify oppression, misogyny, and the attempting to force Christian ideals and morality on people....

I think this is a very extreme view!

The everyday Catholic on the street may not be but have you had a look at the abortion debate? The RCC threatening politicians with excommunication unless they vote in line with RCC ideology, priest preaching anti-choice from the pulpits, Catholic lobby groups harassing politicians in their homes, Christian fundamentalists sending politicians death threats. Globally; the RCC spreading the lie that HIV does not cause AIDS in Africa. What are these if not examples of people trying to enforce Roman Catholic ideals and morality on others by intimidation, misinformation, and downright lies, and all backed up by 'God says so, it's in the bible'? So don't try to tell me that no-one is trying to force biblical morality and ideals on those of us who have no interest in following Christian doctrine, because to say that would either be a blatant lie or outright stupidity.

Sarky

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Look I am going to make a guess and say you probably done a BSc in Marine Science which encompases the four disiplines above or at least touches on them...

Yup, BSc in marine science, good guess. And then I did a HDip in microbiology. Followed by an MSc in bioinformatics/systems biology. I'm half way through my second paid research contract since my last degree, and currently looking at either more research work or a PhD early next year. Learning is fun!

I doubt very much you speak for the BSc community.

I wouldn't want to. I have better qualified communities to represent.

Besides this is history we are talking about, people can theorise as much as they want... Unless you have a time machine?

Feel free to debate with Bannasidhe, then. Unless you want to move those goalposts a bit more first?

Bannasidhe

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Just don't bother with 'em Bannasidhe, not worth your time.

True.

I try not waste my time with people who think 'this is history we are talking about, people can theorise as much as they want' unless it is the performance of my academic duties.

daddyorchips

I dont believe in god big deal why do people care so much priests are pedophiles so the catholic church should be abolished the new pope is most likely a pedophile and so will be the next pope

SebBerkovich

daddyorchips wrote: »

the new pope is most likely a pedophile and so will be the next pope

You're gonna need some extraordinary evidence to support particular extraordinary claim.

daddyorchips

SebBerkovich wrote: »

You're gonna need some extraordinary evidence to support particular extraordinary claim.

dont need evidence for personal beliefs

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

The everyday Catholic on the street may not be but have you had a look at the abortion debate? The RCC threatening politicians with excommunication unless they vote in line with RCC ideology, priest preaching anti-choice from the pulpits, Catholic lobby groups harassing politicians in their homes, Christian fundamentalists sending politicians death threats. Globally; the RCC spreading the lie that HIV does not cause AIDS in Africa. What are these if not examples of people trying to enforce Roman Catholic ideals and morality on others by intimidation, misinformation, and downright lies, and all backed up by 'God says so, it's in the bible'? So don't try to tell me that no-one is trying to force biblical morality and ideals on those of us who have no interest in following Christian doctrine, because to say that would either be a blatant lie or outright stupidity.

Sorry I fail to see your point?
What exactly are you suggesting or is this just a rant?

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Sorry I fail to see your point?
What exactly are you suggesting or is this just a rant?

Well, you had said

Not everyone that decides to believe in the bible is attempting to justify oppression, misogyny, and the attempting to force Christian ideals and morality on people....

and I was just giving you some examples of where people, and some people in influential positions, are attempting to justify oppression and misogyny and are attempting to force Christian ideals and morality onto people.

ShowMeTheCash

Sarky wrote: »

Yup, BSc in marine science, good guess. And then I did a HDip in microbiology. Followed by an MSc in bioinformatics/systems biology. I'm half way through my second paid research contract since my last degree, and currently looking at either more research work or a PhD early next year. Learning is fun!


I wouldn't want to. I have better qualified communities to represent.



Feel free to debate with Bannasidhe, then. Unless you want to move those goalposts a bit more first?

Move the goal posts?
Have you actually made a point?.. Or said anything.

Few things I just want to reiterate.
I am not a Christian, I would consider myself ignostic. I look at the bible and I see two distinct sets of arguments...
Those who take the bible as the unfallible word of god and those who look at it in the same manner realising how insane this must be therefore discrediting the whole thing.

The arguments for discrediting the bible I find almost as laughable as the arguments made to support it....

The point I am making is nothing here can be proven but equally disproved.

You want to simply state, "you are wrong, I am a scientist" as if this actually holds any weight? Or am I wrong?

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

Well, you had said


and I was just giving you some examples of where people, and some people in influential positions, are attempting to justify oppression and misogyny and are attempting to force Christian ideals and morality onto people.

You are taking a very specific example, the RCC do not speak for all Christians.. You may as well talk about the KKK as the too pertained to being a Christian organisation.

Mark Hamill

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The arguments for discrediting the bible I find almost as laughable as the arguments made to support it....

Given then that you don't believe in the bible, what is your argument for discrediting it? Is it as laughable as any other? Why not?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The point I am making is nothing here can be proven but equally disproved.

I assume you are talking about the religious vs scientific explanation for the origin of the universe? How can they be equally disproved?

doctoremma

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Usually people have theories... No matter how radical.... Even in science very few are proven so they remain theories, usually at some point in time all one can do is dissprove them....

Nobody has to bother disproving scientific "theories" when they don't have any evidence to support even the creation of the "hypotheses". If there is no evidence to support the creation of a hypothesis, then it is indistinguishable from "makey uppy".

Brian Shanahan

seamus wrote: »

If I say that I believe my computer was put together by leprechauns using fairy dust and lucky charms and you say that you believe it was constructed in a factory by Dell employees.

Speaking as a former Dell employee, both statements are the same difference.

ShowMeTheCash

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Given then that you don't believe in the bible, what is your argument for discrediting it? Is it as laughable as any other? Why not?


I assume you are talking about the religious vs scientific explanation for the origin of the universe? How can they be equally disproved?

No I am talking about its intent...

The bible is not a scentific book, the stories are almost child like as a primative people tried to make sense of the world!

How did we come about hmmm adam and eve, 2000 years ago that may have seemed plausible.

How do we have so many languages, tower of babel... Again two thousand years ago that too may have been plausible...

But lets say for a second there is a god, and some dude in a cave has a vision, do you think that god is going to sit down and educate him in the finer points of biology.... What we do know is the bible is many books written by many different people, but these people also had a limited understanding of how thing where, so their simplistic view point relfects this.

I think on one hand people will discredit the bible soley on this reason. However some people may choose to believe in a god that inspired the stories of the bible, they may even choose to believe in some dude called Jesus and that ge died for the sin of man kind...

What I am saying is, I cannot stand up and tell them people.... No wait a second this is all BS..

Sofaspud

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

an Atheist is someone that holds the belief that no God exists.

I know a lot has happened since this comment, but this (vaguely on topic) is one of the questions / misconceptions that annoys me.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe a god exists, not someone who believes a god doesn't exist. There's a huge difference.

You label yourself as "ignostic", this means that you don't believe in a god. Congratulations, you're an atheist.

Everybody in the world is either agnostic or lying, as nobody knows whether one exists or doesn't.

Brian Shanahan

daddyorchips wrote: »

I dont believe in god big deal why do people care so much priests are pedophiles so the catholic church should be abolished the new pope is most likely a pedophile and so will be the next pope

SebBerkovich wrote: »

You're gonna need some extraordinary evidence to support particular extraordinary claim.

Foot fetishes are far more common than most people think, you know.

ShowMeTheCash

doctoremma wrote: »

Nobody has to bother disproving scientific "theories" when they don't have any evidence to support even the creation of the "hypotheses". If there is no evidence to support the creation of a hypothesis, then it is indistinguishable from "makey uppy".

The bible again is not a scientific book, it is a number historical artifacts.
The idea that it is "makey uppy" is like saying there is nothing credible in any of the books of the bible... Nothing it all, just like brothers Grimm all fictional...

What proof do you have this is the case?

Sofaspud

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The bible again is not a scientific book, it is a number historical artifacts.

By historical artifacts, you seem to mean folk tales which may or may not be vaguely related to actual events.

ShowMeTheCash

Sofaspud wrote: »

By historical artifacts, you seem to mean folk tales which may or may not be vaguely related to actual events.

Possibly but no more so than any artifact of a similar age.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Excuse me?

I think the poster may have been referring to those who sit on the boards of universities. They're more administrators than academics?

Or is talking nonsense.

endacl

daddyorchips wrote: »

I dont believe in god big deal why do people care so much priests are pedophiles so the catholic church should be abolished the new pope is most likely a pedophile and so will be the next pope

......,,,,,

Here you go. I'd a few spare ones lying around. Instructions for their use are available elsewhere.

old hippy

daddyorchips wrote: »

I dont believe in god big deal why do people care so much priests are pedophiles so the catholic church should be abolished the new pope is most likely a pedophile and so will be the next pope

Pleasepunctuatewhenpontificatingonthepontiff

daddyorchips

endacl wrote: »

......,,,,,

Here you go. I'd a few spare ones lying around. Instructions for their use are available elsewhere

you forgot the full stop

Turtwig

Deleted the last couple of childish posts. Any more of that crap and cards or possible bans may be handed out! No need to insult one another.

Thanks,

Poo Fingers

"Why do you hate God so much?"

Sycopat

"Our website uses cookies. Do you have a problem with that?"


:rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Sycopat wrote: »

"Our website uses cookies. Do you have a problem with that?"


:rolleyes:

What kind of cookies?

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What kind of cookies?

Galvasean

Here we go again...

Bannasidhe

Galvasean wrote: »

Here we go again...

My mother, who is usually a reliable source of damn fine biscuits, gave me some bloody horrible ones today - and me without a dog or two to slip them to...

kylith

I just got some chewy orange and chocolate chip cookies. They're goooooood.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

I just got some chewy orange and chocolate chip cookies. They're goooooood.

I normally make biscuits when the grandkids are here but it was so hot that I spent Saturday chasing them around the garden with the hose.
Should have duct taped them to a tree, turned on the sprinkler and made the damn biscuits. :mad:

doctoremma

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The bible again is not a scientific book, it is a number historical artifacts.
The idea that it is "makey uppy" is like saying there is nothing credible in any of the books of the bible... Nothing it all, just like brothers Grimm all fictional...

What proof do you have this is the case?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me to prove that there is nothing of any credibility in the Bible? That's not my job. It is the job of those asserting Biblical 'truths' to prove the credibility of such 'truths'. Until there is proof to support the story, it is indistinguishable from 'makey uppy'. It is illogical to ask for proof that it is 'makey uppy'. How could I go about that?

It mirrors the scientific process - say something is so and show your working. This is what caught my attention earlier (and others) - your rather jumbled usage of 'theories' and 'proving' or 'disproving' them.

I suspect there are many credible stories in the Bible - peoples, lands, kings, etc. (I say 'suspect' because history is my least favourite subject). I know there are many discredited stories in the Bible - Genesis, global floods, etc. If they are only proposed as a series of historical documents, I wouldn't be bothered. But they aren't, are they? These stories are proposed to reveal the actions and word of an inerrant God. You only need one of the stories to be proposed as truth then entirely discredited before that position has to change.

BTW, I am eating Millionaire's shortbread.

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me to prove that there is nothing of any credibility in the Bible? That's not my job. It is the job of those asserting Biblical 'truths' to prove the credibility of such 'truths'. Until there is proof to support the story, it is indistinguishable from 'makey uppy'. It is illogical to ask for proof that it is 'makey uppy'. How could I go about that?

It mirrors the scientific process - say something is so and show your working. This is what caught my attention earlier (and others) - your rather jumbled usage of 'theories' and 'proving' or 'disproving' them.

I suspect there are many credible stories in the Bible - peoples, lands, kings, etc. (I say 'suspect' because history is my least favourite subject). I know there are many discredited stories in the Bible - Genesis, global floods, etc. If they are only proposed as a series of historical documents, I wouldn't be bothered. But they aren't, are they? These stories are proposed to reveal the actions and word of an inerrant God. You only need one of the stories to be proposed as truth then entirely discredited before that position has to change.

BTW, I am eating Millionaire's shortbread.

Plus this term 'historical artifact' really just means it is old. In the case of the various books in the Bible we have no way of knowing how old or whether they are contemporary with the events they describe so essentially they are a collection of laws and folk tales from one particular group of people who happened to be literate.
Their age does not confer any status upon them other than 'old' - it certainly does not lend them credibility. After all - the Greeks also wrote down their laws and told us all about their Gods. The difference is the Greeks never claimed these written words were the words of the Gods themselves.

In short Ancient document does not = truth.

Geomy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Plus this term 'historical artifact' really just means it is old. In the case of the various books in the Bible we have no way of knowing how old or whether they are contemporary with the events they describe so essentially they are a collection of laws and folk tales from one particular group of people who happened to be literate.
Their age does not confer any status upon them other than 'old' - it certainly does not lend them credibility. After all - the Greeks also wrote down their laws and told us all about their Gods. The difference is the Greeks never claimed these written words were the words of the Gods themselves.

In short Ancient document does not = truth.

Ah sure if humanity progress over the next couple of thousand years, they won't believe the **** that went on this century either ;-)

People worshipping djs, celeb's,labels,writers,superficial bull****....

To me modern day celeb worship is just as mad as worshiping carved stone and wood....

endacl

Geomy wrote: »

Ah sure if humanity progress over the next couple of thousand years, they won't believe the **** that went on this century either ;-)

People worshipping djs, celeb's,labels,writers,superficial bull****....

To me modern day celeb worship is just as mad as worshiping carved stone and wood....

Not...... quite......

Celebrities do (unfortunately) exist. They are verifiable.