The fish Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Just out of interest, why do you care so much? Are you offended by it? Because this country is secular. It's a cultural melting pot, mainly due to the British empire, and more recently due to the EU immigration laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patch Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I posted a link proving otherwise. I'm sure you could find a link that proves Britain is secular - which I noticed you didn't - but I was just wondering why you had such a passion about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I posted a link proving otherwise. I'm sure you could find a link that proves Britain is secular - which I noticed you didn't - but I was just wondering why you had such a passion about it. I didn't look at the link, I'd presumed it was regarding cat lovers vs dog lovers... Now I've seen it, I'd like to point out that is two years old, and newer research suggests otherwise: (this particular link is only 10 days more recent, but it's the first I found that was suitable) 36% of population are Humanist, and less than 7% of population attend church - how very Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyellowbloke Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Fish does have a point. There was an article in the Guardian today about the Church of England's Back to Church Sunday campaign to get more people into church. According to that article latest figures show only 1.2 million people attend church every week and only 1.7 million attend once a month. Out of a population of around 60 million that's not very good. And here is a spanky link to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 OK, I'll post no more here- as The fish said, it's pointless- he hates my religion, thinks my arguments are crap, and to be honest, no-one's going to change anyone else's mind. I will say this, though- yes, of course I think my religion is the best. Of course I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 OK, I'll post no more here- as The fish said, it's pointless- he hates my religion, thinks my arguments are crap, and to be honest, no-one's going to change anyone else's mind. I will say this, though- yes, of course I think my religion is the best. Of course I do. Haha, I don't hate you religion, I hate your lack of justification! Put simply: why do you think your religion is the best, and why do you think it's right? I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm trying to get you to use your mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I will say this, though- yes, of course I think my religion is the best. Of course I do. I hope it's just you who says that one religion is better than another (that's if you really are religious. Which I'm doubting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 THe thing is, guys, is that this UK kid is like 12. He's probably smart for his age, but he cannot escape the naivité of his youth! He's not an idiot, he's just a bit ignorent. I agree his arguments suck, which is why i try not to actually get into them with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 For christ's sake, his nickname is UK. How dumb is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Unless you believe UK created the universe, I don't think a discussion of him is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 Unless you believe UK created the universe, I don't think a discussion of him is relevant. On that note, I propose that Flinky created the universe, just to have somewhere to display his awesomeness. In fact, we should start a new religion! It shall be called 'Fearcantkillyoubut...ism." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 ok so UNIVERSE! time for my crappy stoner idea. Can't remember if i posted it. Basically, it's more of a teleological standpoint... kind of. y'see, infinity and everything dictates that there was no beginning and there is no end, which suggests to me that whatever process occurred to produce the beginning of the universe is one that will happen again in the future. Of course hawkins says something about what created the universe cannot actually be a part of the universe (actually it sounds more like something plato said...), so maybe what occurred before the 'big bang' was a universe with different rules and whatnot. Now, again, a reminder that i do not seriously believe this theory, it's just a fun one to imagine. The universe was created almost like a test - the creator wanted an equal, being all bored being everything and all. So the universe is made as a learning ground for some sentient being to evolve a talking buddy. the evolution curve has shifted, for us humans, from physical to technological, and eventually the rate of returns will be insanely quick - look at the periods of time were our civilisations evolved, the time periods are getting shorter and shorter. Technology better and communication more efficient. ... so yeah, insert an ellipsical, nonsensical gap here nad skip to the part where we somehow blow up the universe and start it all again. not a very good explanation but I don't care. I can't remember the better details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyellowbloke Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 ok so UNIVERSE! time for my crappy stoner idea. Can't remember if i posted it. Basically, it's more of a teleological standpoint... kind of. y'see, infinity and everything dictates that there was no beginning and there is no end, which suggests to me that whatever process occurred to produce the beginning of the universe is one that will happen again in the future. Of course hawkins says something about what created the universe cannot actually be a part of the universe (actually it sounds more like something plato said...), so maybe what occurred before the 'big bang' was a universe with different rules and whatnot. Now, again, a reminder that i do not seriously believe this theory, it's just a fun one to imagine. The universe was created almost like a test - the creator wanted an equal, being all bored being everything and all. So the universe is made as a learning ground for some sentient being to evolve a talking buddy. the evolution curve has shifted, for us humans, from physical to technological, and eventually the rate of returns will be insanely quick - look at the periods of time were our civilisations evolved, the time periods are getting shorter and shorter. Technology better and communication more efficient. ... so yeah, insert an ellipsical, nonsensical gap here nad skip to the part where we somehow blow up the universe and start it all again. not a very good explanation but I don't care. I can't remember the better details. I remember reading a short story like that once. It was about a guy who meets a stranger on a train who turns out to be God who tells him that humans aren't alone in the universe and that there are hundreds of other planets with sentient life battling it out to be the next creator without destroying themselves in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 well it sort of strikes me as possible :P even if it wasn't the intention of the universe, i could imagine humans eventually furthering all sorts of technology and having a go at making their own species. I bet we would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I bet we would. From how you look at it, we already have. Just not from scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 The problem is, the Bible is severly outdated. If it was written now, it wouldn't discrimante certain people at all. It was a reflection of the times, really. Alos, it's written by people, so I take it with a pinch of salt. Or should I say "took it", before I realised that there was no God. Or at least none for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haden Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 The problem is, the Bible is severly outdated. If it was written now, it wouldn't discrimante certain people at all. It was a reflection of the times, really. Alos, it's written by people, so I take it with a pinch of salt. Or should I say "took it", before I realised that there was no God. Or at least none for me. Ah dear god I tried to stay out of this thread but I cant with threads like this. Ok firstly. Bible discrimnating against certian people? Just for a second everyone forget what they have ever they think about the bible. View it as pure history. We have the good samaratin story, a parable which advocates the jews should help samaratins and vica versa. Love your enemy is a revolutionary enough idea today never mind 2000 years ago. In a sense the Bible positively discrimantes for the jews but thats as far as that argument can go. If there is a god there is one if not there isnt, if the fish is right then fair play there isnt a god if I am right then there is one but we would both agree its a universal truth. So please none of this no god for me nonsense. Ah man flame time im sorry I just couldnt keep away from this thread. The fish knows I love these debates! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Ah dear god I tried to stay out of this thread but I cant with threads like this. The more the merrier, this debate need more different opinions. If there is a god there is one if not there isnt, if the fish is right then fair play there isnt a god if I am right then there is one but we would both agree its a universal truth. So please none of this no god for me nonsense. If there's a god, I'm fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haden Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 The more the merrier, this debate need more different opinions. If there's a god, I'm fucked. You can never be beyond gods redemption in christianity but we are diverging beyond the point and in the morning we will both be flamed like kentucky fri chickens. Add me via msn if u want further discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Love your enemy is a revolutionary enough idea today never mind 2000 years ago. If there is a god there is one if not there isnt, if the fish is right then fair play there isnt a god if I am right then there is one but we would both agree its a universal truth. So please none of this no god for me nonsense. On your first point: I have to agree, and will take this opportunity to once again point out that Jesus, or the author who invented Jesus, was 2000 years ahead of their time. Oh, and I you are, opinion-wise, my enemy, but I love you. On the second point: I'll have to, once again, agree: whatever the truth is, then that is the truth, I will allow that, regardless of whether or not it involves a god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Ah dear god I tried to stay out of this thread but I cant with threads like this. Ok firstly. Bible discrimnating against certian people? Just for a second everyone forget what they have ever they think about the bible. View it as pure history. We have the good samaratin story, a parable which advocates the jews should help samaratins and vica versa. Love your enemy is a revolutionary enough idea today never mind 2000 years ago. In a sense the Bible positively discrimantes for the jews but thats as far as that argument can go. If there is a god there is one if not there isnt, if the fish is right then fair play there isnt a god if I am right then there is one but we would both agree its a universal truth. So please none of this no god for me nonsense. Ah man flame time im sorry I just couldnt keep away from this thread. The fish knows I love these debates! lol Yeah, tbf, people just draw conclusions based on the fact it says "man and woman". It doesnt explicitly say anything. Sorry. And I know God doesn't exist. I do. I am me. I know that sounds so shitty and ignorant, but it doesn't comprehend for me, and to my brain, it's just like any other myth/story. And I was a pretty "heavy" christian a few years back. Which I feel gives me an informed opinion. To me personally, no God exists. Which is sad. My brain unfortunately won't tell me otherwise. EDIT: Just so you know, when I see/listen to reay religious people ,my first instinct is that of superiority that I "know", but then admiration that they can actually beleive in something as amazing as that, like I used to. That theres a meaning in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haver Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 But Haden, as Derrida has made the case, there *is* no objective truth! You've opened a can of worms there! Also, this is *not* a secular country. We are ruled, all of us, by a monarch whose power is resolved from the Christian God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 But Haden, as Derrida has made the case, there *is* no objective truth! You've opened a can of worms there! Also, this is *not* a secular country. We are ruled, all of us, by a monarch whose power is resolved from the Christian God. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Haden? Don't be vulgar now! It often seems that you only have typical or even common things to say... As some dude said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 On your first point: I have to agree, and will take this opportunity to once again point out that Jesus, or the author who invented Jesus, was 2000 years ahead of their time. Oh, and I you are, opinion-wise, my enemy, but I love you. On the second point: I'll have to, once again, agree: whatever the truth is, then that is the truth, I will allow that, regardless of whether or not it involves a god. cept, theres like historical unbiased records of jesus being alive, and you admitted to him walking around on the earth >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 But Haden, as Derrida has made the case, there *is* no objective truth! Maybe not for arty-farty types like you, but as a mathematician my work and education is based on theorems and methodologies that are proved correct by ... er ... mathematical proof. So. I fall into the God exists or He doesn't camp. However, I don't like to pretend that I know everything or that everything has such rigorous proof as mathematical theorems. Faith is by Paul's (New Testament bloke) admission "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," but I have had experiences in my life that have built my faith to such a point that I don't worry about the details. I have an idea of the grand picture and that's all that matters to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts