The Bible in quotations

[omaghjoe]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

[Maguire01]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

No.

[muppet]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

[screenexile]

If Jesus was the son of god 2000 odd years ago how can we be so certain there hasn't been another one sent? Do David Icke and the Waco guy not have equal claim... What are we basing it on?

Isn't there a massive chance that Jesus was a confidence trickster who was extremely intelligent/deluded and was able to brainwash a lot of people who were ripe for the taking?

Can creationism exist given the overwhelming evidence of the universe being Billions of years old? What about Dinosaurs and surely there's no way Noah had 2 of everything on his boat. Did he have the insects that eat your eyes from the inside on as well?

These are some of the questions I struggle with. I would like to think there was a God and I'm open to it but I need something more than "you just have to have faith" to convince me!

There have been many people who have claimed to be God, the Son of God, the Daughter of God.... They've all died. Jesus rose from the dead and stands undisputed on that front....

If he was a confidence trickster - what did he gain from it? Oh yeah - He was beaten, tortured, scourged and crucified - that worked out....

I think Science and Creationism are aligning slowly. I don't know how literal the animal stories are but surely you see the correlation between the big bang and God speaking the world into existence?

Again you and muppet could find better answers on other forums but without "faith" I don't know how open to anyone's answers you might ever be...

Easy easy there's a big leap you just took there now!

Undisputed? What's to say it wasn't some type of magic trick? I once saw David Copperfield get sawn in half and then get put back together... should we be considering him as the son of God? What's to say Jesus' resurrection wasn't some kind of illusion that was then retold 3rd hand and retranslated a hundred odd times only for the Chinese whispers to make it seem like a resurrection?

All this stuff is far from cut and dried or undisputed!

[Keyser soze]

How can you debate with someone who uses 'faith' as a premise for their argument?

This thread is pointless apart from the comedic aspects of some of the more infantile responses.

[screenexile]

How can you debate with someone who uses 'faith' as a premise for their argument?

This thread is pointless apart from the comedic aspects of some of the more infantile responses.

A bit of healthy debate never hurt anyone!

[armaghniac]

There is some good stuff in there too. In a household with a spaniel, this one always seemed appropriate.

"He who, passing by, stops to meddle with strife that is none of his business is like one who takes a dog by the ears."

[deiseach]

There is some good stuff in there too. In a household with a spaniel, this one always seemed appropriate.

"He who, passing by, stops to meddle with strife that is none of his business is like one who takes a dog by the ears."

Odd how Dubya and Tony Blair missed that one.

[J70]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

[J70]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

[omaghjoe]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.

It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

[deiseach]

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

Well, what do you think created the big bang?

[Hardy]

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory

Probably the most quoted, most misconceived objection to Big Bang and every other scientific theory.

there is no real evidence of it

Really? Maybe I should suggest a reading list.

And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

Correct. You have an alternative interpretation of this observation?

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe

On what basis have you arrived at this "real truth"? What explanation do you propose that is more "feasible" than the big bang. And where have you published your research?

the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know

What is the word "only" doing in this phrase? You would prefer proposals based on what we don't know?

much like the Adam and Eve theory.

What? I have to leave now. My mind has just gone into boggle overdrive

[omaghjoe]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

Do you believe in the existence of fairies?

Never looked into it in depth, so I wouldn't really be in a position to comment on their full existence. Alot of their happenings seem to have a perfectly logical explanation but at the same time I know I wouldn't want to the man who had to go at fairy fort with a digger. I suppose its a case of who knows, so why mess with it?

Now let me ask you a question.... Do you believe in Extra Terrestrial life forms? And do you think that it is a logical thing to search for evidence of those life forms?

[J70]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.

It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

What are you talking about?

The point of my post is that proposing that some intelligence created the big bang only introduces one more thing, way more fantastical, that has to be explained.

As for "only a theory"... a classic non-scientific dismissal.  Theory in science means something different to theory in everyday use.

There is lots of evidence for the big bang.  Its been around since Hubble in the 20s and predicted the discovery of background microwave radiation in the 60s and is still standing 50 years on as scientific study only gets more detailed.  Doesn't mean another model wont build on it and replace it, but its been very successful so far.