[Closed] Catholic Church and other religions!

Has it? Awesome, can you tell me which bits are which? Or is there a guide or something, like Cliff Notes? Only, this seems to be a fairly big point of debate whenever there's this kind of discussion. I had no idea it had been documented now, that'll save a lot of arguments.

Yes, there s a guide, the Second Vatican Council and other doctrinal statements, no there are no Cliff Notes, but as i said earlier, if you don't know anything about it, why are you arguing about it?

[b]The was nothing, no time, no matter, nothing. Not even anything for there to be none of.then allof a sudden, for no reason at all, there was an almight boom and literally, out of nowhere, everthing there ever was and ever will be appeared.[/b]

I suspect, being honest, most of you would probably say you thought it was ridiculous nonsense.

Well, it is ridiculous nonsense. It's a common misunderstanding / misrepresentation of The Big Bang Theory which is often trotted out by creationist types (who bizarrely have no issue with accepting it once they've crossed out "the universe" and written "god" instead.)

Oh really? What happened then?

CM - how about you answer the question, honestly? No thought not

No grum, you first.

the 'sample' you chose only only representedone viewpoint, why not show the other ones, or i fact look at some larger scale data.

So from those stats, most people are happy, and a statistically relevant percentage aren't. The ones that aren't circumcised can go and get it done, and the ones who are can... oh.

Still not answering the question I see.

Personally I'm not happy with the idea of a single child having their body permanently altered against their will. Crazy eh?

Right, but you can see that a large percentage are happy with it. So, it argues against the idea of mutlialtion

Grum, when your evidence is based on 'I imagine' you cannot expect it to be taken seriously

You really must be trolling.

Still not answering the question I see.

Personally I'm not happy with the idea of a single child having their body permanently altered against their will. Crazy eh?

Actaully, i was referring to the question about whether or not it seemed riduculous that everything all of a sudden came out of nowhere.

What was your question?

Cougar - yes, I mean the free will to choose whether to believe in God or not.
If you have "proof" there is no such thing as faith. I think that's a pretty easy thing to understand. My faith is not based on my parents' influence - they are not Orthodox, nor a priest saying "trust me". I could write a lot about how my faith developed but I'm not sure I want something so personal being derided and shot down in public, which I am afraid it would be.
By the way, I don't think "disingenuous" is the word you're after.

Yes, there s a guide, the Second Vatican Council and other doctrinal statements, no there are no Cliff Notes, but as i said earlier, if you don't know anything about it, why are you arguing about it?

Not knowing everything about it != not knowing everything about it.

Who's arguing? Don't judge everyone by your own standards, I'm having a discussion. People often learn things in discussions, you should try it sometime. I've learnt something from this one, I'd never heard of the Second Vatican Council Its scope would appear to be beyond 'a quick google' so I might have to take a rain-check on this unless you can give me a summary.

Faith would not exist if we were simply presented with facts. Just because there are no facts does not mean that God does not exist

You know what, I think that some (not all, obviously) people find it easy to reject religion because they are only comfortable in life if they have hard facts, and it's easy to say that the events describe in the Bible are not facts and therefore religion has no basis.

Similarly, science is not all about facts, actually.

* evidence to support a view
** its in a book and I believe it.

EDIT: last comment before it appears to be personal
they dpeth of your faith, the manifestation of it is and how much you believe it has no affect on whether the belief is true. No matter how much I choose to believe in the four elements or homeopathy they wont be true. The issue is not whether you have faith, I believe you and you have, it is whether that faith is accurate in explaining existence.

If you have "proof" there is no such thing as faith. I think that's a pretty easy thing to understand.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive actually. For instance, I could have faith that a proof is correct, could I not?

I'm not sure I want something so personal being derided and shot down in public, which I am afraid it would be.

Understandable. I'm afraid it would be too, but mostly on religion threads these days we just ignore Woppit and things go a lot more smoothly. (-:

I don't think "disingenuous" is the word you're after.

How do you mean?

A word about allegory in the Bible: it is not about people picking and choosing what they want to take literally. The Orthodox tradition is pretty much unchanged from how it was in the origins of Christianity and we believe that to understand the Bible you need to follow the tradition passed down from the apostles and study the Bible within that tradition.
Anyway, I'm not a theologist so probably should shut up and go to bed!

Not knowing everything about it != not knowing everything about it.

Ok, sorry,it gets confusing with who is discussing and who is arguing but yes, if you want to know about the doctrine of the church, then V2 is a good place to start.

Just the request for a guide or Cliff Notes, felt a bit more mocking than discussing, so i figured you weren't really discussing. Mea culpa

In these debate folks are often making statments about what 'Christian say or believe' . Often, they have not taken the time to find out what they do or donot believe.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Just the request for a guide or Cliff Notes, felt a bit more mocking than discussing, so i figured you weren't really discussing. Mea culpa

's cool. I try not to write too seriously and perhaps tend to think I'm funnier than I am, I guess it's easy to take the wrong way.

As a rule of thumb, if something I write can be taken two ways, and one of those ways sounds like I'm being a complete dick(*), I probably meant the other one.

(* - ie, uncircumcised?)

Cougar I think this is what Vicky means

Ah, ok. I wasn't exactly sure when I replied (hence the question mark) and, TBH, I'm still not sure I completely understand.

's cool. I try not to write too seriously and perhaps tend to think I'm funnier than I am, 's easy to take the wrong way.

If it is any consolation, I think you are a bit funny.

I get that a lot.

If you have "proof" there is no such thing as faith. I think that's a pretty easy thing to understand.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive actually. For instance, I could have faith that a proof is correct, could I not?

If it helps, in this case the things that you have faith about and have proof for, are different things. Once it was proved to you that the proof was correct, your faith that it was correct would disappear.

Sorry, one more thing!
Just wanted to explain why I may sound a bit defensive and unwilling to go into detail. Several years ago, I was once a member of an all -female "mums" internet forum where a discussion about religion started, and it got extremely nasty within a couple of pages and I experienced really vicious religious hatred from about 3 or 4 women. I have to say, it's great that we've reached 16 pages and it's still pretty good-natured!
🙂

[i]I know the biblical definition of faith and its rather neat you need it because lets be honest, as you accept, there are no facts[/i]

Boys and girls, be careful when stating that the bible has "no facts". Don't forget that the Jewish people and the Romans kept many records which back up some of the life events written in the bible. I'm trying to choose my words carefully as I don't want to offend anyone here.

 

be careful when stating that the bible has "no facts".

King Arthur lived so there is some truth in the Merlin myth but no "facts"

It's difficult isn't it, when you're in a Mosque and everyone's praying and you really enjoy leapfrog.

- Milton Jones

I was once a member of an all -female "mums" internet forum

STW is fairly familiar with that forum.

this is why "debating" with you is a relatively tedious semantic excrcise. you are clearly bright but your talents are wasted, IMHO, doing thi ssort of stuff.

Conversely, debating with you Junkyard is frustrating because you DON'T pay attention to detail, you just deal in sweeping statements!

Me: Oh dear

This is "not playing nicely"?

It's called being passive-aggressive isn't it?

so we all evolved from a common ancestor and god made us all as well

It's not that hard. A baker makes a cake by putting all the ingredients together and creating the right conditions for the cake to appear (ie putting it in a hot oven). The baker still MADE the cake. Likewise God could set up the big bang, knowing humans would appear. Seems quite reasonable to me. Genesis could be considered just a parable.

As far as I know, biblical literalism and creationism are fringe beliefs within Christianity in this country.

However, I don't believe it's worth entering into a debate without mutual respect on both sides.

Excellently put - I hope junkyard doens't exclude an excellent contributer by being disrespectful or dare I say it - offensive.... (reading on catch-up is like following a little story, what happens next?)

the lack knowledge about religion which i find wearing

Agreed, and I've been trying to say that, but my knowledge on religion is not good enough to argue as well as you have been CM. And you just get accused of nit picking...

I dont see how you can take the "facts" in the bible and acientfic knowlegde and combine them coherently.

She already explained that - Genesis is allegorical - simple.

its not a great system to generally accept things which have no facts to support them.

Many would disagree. This is like trying to describe Beethoven to a dog. If you believe that, then your mind is closed to the concepts of religion. So you might as well leave it there. You can't argue about religion on the basis of known scientific facts about the physical world - that's not really the point. It might've been 500 years ago.

Your arguments therefore are circular, self referential. I would suggest you don't bother debating religion, I'm not sure you're capable of understanding the idea of faith.

I have to say, it's great that we've reached 16 pages and it's still pretty good-natured!

That's why STW is such a great forum!

Within the context here i assume it means the central claims re being given 10 commandments, Noah and the flood, and the nature of god. There is no "fact" [proof]. I think we all know some of the people lived but it is not a hoistorical record in that sense

As i understand it, within RC, theologians can trace the 10 commandments to the code of Hammurabi, if not earlier. There is no claim that Noah etc. was real, though historicaly, there was evidence of a severe case of the annual flooding which took place in the region and at least one merchant who but all his stuff on a big raft or boat, it was on the telly!
The nature of God is a strange one i think folks claim to know one or two things about God, e.g. Loving, forgiving etc. but not many more. I hink hey accept there is lots about God which they do not know. The Muslims say you cannot attribute human characteristics to God, i think some of the legacy of wherever that came from contiues today in other ibrahamic faiths

Likewise God could set up the big bang, knowing humans would appear. Seems quite reasonable to me. Genesis could be considered just a parable.

biblical literalism

She already explained that - Genesis is allegorical - simple.

Many would disagree.

This is like trying to describe Beethoven to a dog. If you believe that, then your mind is closed to the concepts of religion.

You can't argue about religion on the basis of known scientific facts about the physical world - that's not really the point.

Your arguments therefore are circular, self referential.

I would suggest you don't bother debating religion, I'm not sure you're capable of understanding the idea of faith.

I am capabale of understanding its a belief in something that has no evidence[ i quoted the bible up there molly] - i have suggested for all the reasona above that this is unwise - you dont do this either so i dont know why you attack me for this - do you believe in things that have no evidence molly ? Do you have faith in a graviton particle? - you are an aethist you think and believe as i do on this and follow the evidence

CM the phrase you are probably looking for is

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

So we have a position where we all accept the following
1. The bible has aspects that are not true
2. We dont seem to know which bits are true and which are false or allegories- i guess this one is debatable to be fair.
3. We know their is no proof of god and faith has no factual basis
3. We cannot actually explain what god is or know god

and yet some still wonder why folk have an issue with this position and scientist molly calls my argument for evidence circular.

Oooh lots!

That seems reasonable to you - Really - Its completely wrong but still broadly accurate

Well, you mean you think it's wrong unless of course you know what is right. If so do tell, or even a best guess will do.

CM please feel free to defend creationism as accurate rather than troll so lazily.
Do you believe in creationsim? You must or why bother to ask etc
yes you first etc YAWN 🙄

CM please feel free to defend creationism as accurate rather than troll so lazily.
Do you believe in creationsim? You must or why bother to ask etc
yes you first etc YAWN

No, i don't believe in creationism. But that's me. My turn now, JY what triggered the big bang?

You must or why bother to ask etc

Don't get this bit. Can you clarify?

JY what triggered the big bang?

If I may?

The answer to this question (repetition number 14,000,053) is:

We don't know.

means factually innacurate and nothing but a creation myth.

Dunno about the 'nothing but a creation myth' bit. But yes, it dodn't happen like that.

Is this meant to make me take the bible more seriously seeing as the opening is , by all accounts, wrong?

No, i'm not sure who you think expects you to take it more seriously as a result.

Wrong seems a strange word to use in thsi context. It didn't happen, it is allegorical. That doesn't really make it wrong.
Unless you think Harry Potter is wrong, Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea is wrong, Shakespeare is wrong. When Munch painted the Scream, that wasn't a real person, so he was wrong. Picasso's Guernica did not happen literally as depicted. So he too was wrong. However, wrong as they are,all these things help us to know more about ourselves and the human condition. Would you dismiss them?

The answer to this question (repetition number 14,000,053) is:

We don't know.

Really? No idea at all?

Except you know it wasn't God, or a spaghetti monster, because neither of those exist?

Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion

So we accept that they have no physical basis for their belief system but its unfair to argue about this - why is it unfair to point out they have no evidence to support a view

I don't think anyone is saying it is unfair. My understanding can't is that they are 'non overlapping magisteria' so it makes no sense to argue about it in that way. NOMA from Stephen Jay Gould.

Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion

That information is currently unavailable, caller.

Ok, so they are pretty unlikely, but please give me a more likely suggestion
That information is currently unavailable, caller.

Excellent! So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.

they are 'non overlapping magisteria' so it makes no sense to argue about it in that way.

That used to be the (convenient for religion) position.

However, sometime around the publication of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", the position changed to "Everything is open to scientific enquiry, including deistic belief systems and their claims."

I think this was as a response to the increasingly vocal demands of superstitions generally following Islamic violence and Christian political encroachment into the Republican Party and civil life in the USA...

So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.

I don't have a suggestion.

Puzzled why you didn't get that.

I don't have a suggestion.

Puzzled why you didn't get that.

I get it now, just couldn't quite believe it. Seems you have a few things you know it could not be but no idea at all what it could be.

Seems you have a few things you know it could not be

Not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

That used to be the (convenient for religion) position.

However, sometime around the publication of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", the position changed to "Everything is open to scientific enquiry, including deistic belief systems and their claims

Whose position changed? Gould? National Academy of Sciences? (Real question)

Seems you have a few things you know it could not be
Not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

Ok, bit by bit if you like.

Could God have triggered the Big Bang?

And a follow up question, do you know anything beyond some basics about the big bang?

This should be fun as you both debate without saying anything

You keep saying that JY. But, I've answered all questions directed at me. You don't ask me anything then complain I haven't said anything. You'll make someone a fine wife some day.

Tell me, do you dismiss Shakespeare as wrong?

Barking, the lot of you. the Goddists for parading fairytales and butwhatifs as an actual argument, and the NoGodists for even thinking that rational argument and reason is going to make the slightest bit of difference to the mindsets of people who have closed their minds a long time ago.

you are all wasting precious time, of which you only have a finite amount. Go do something productive, good, profitable, pleasurable... But give up with this pointless collective banging of heads on proverbial brick walls.

Excellent surface reading V8, now you might read it again and see if you see what we are discussing.

Excellent surface reading V8, now you might read it again and see if you see what we are discussing.

18 pages?? No ta. I refer you to my previous post. I'm off to the park with my kids.

Whose position changed?

I don't have the names, but it was a position I heard with increasing frequency since 2001 via the media, from several in the scientific community as I recall, whenever the subject came up.

Ok, bit by bit if you like.

So you're now trying to construct, after the fact, some proofs of your statement that it "Seems (I) have a few things (I) know it could not be".

Interesting approach.

Could God have triggered the Big Bang?

Unlikely - there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity of any sort (do you REALLY want to sick all this up yet again?).

And a follow up question, do you know anything beyond some basics about the big bang?

Yes, again and again, because it's a complicated explanation full of abstruse observations and explanations, many of which are hard to grasp so I don't carry them around in my head. I am able to access the references, though. I recommend the Brian Cox contribution to "An Atheist's Guide to Christmas", if you're curious.

So you're now trying to construct, after the fact, some proofs of your statement that it "Seems (I) have a few things (I) know it could not be".

Well, it did [i]seem[/i] that way, to me. So, in short 'no'. This isn't a competition for me, i'm try to work out what people think and why. Maybe address some misconceptions, in others and myself. I had thought you would have said god did not trigger the big bang, I was wrong, I can live with that

Could God have triggered the Big Bang?
Unlikely - there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity of any sort (do you REALLY want to sick all this up yet again?).

Not necessary, i'm happy that you think it is a possibility

I don't have the names, but it was a position I heard with increasing frequency since 2001 via the media, from several in the scientific community as I recall, whenever the subject came up.

Ok, so you don't know.

Closed mind you say V8

Tell us, how many times have you actively looked to let God into your life?

As I've said before, Richard Dawkins generously gives the existence of a god a measure of probability so small that the likelyhood of the existence of such a thing is next to zero as makes no difference.

I'm less generous.

I had thought you would have said god did not trigger the big bang

As I said - there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was "triggered" by a god is , to put it mildly, risible.

Charlie and Ro5ey - just one irrefutable item of proof, just one cast iron piece of evidence that can be tested by a third party. Go on, just one. Otherwise V8 looks to have summed it all up rather well IMO. 🙂

As I said - there is no evidence of a god, so the measurement of probability that the universe was "triggered" by a god is , to put it mildly, risible.

CM it is not really debating but sport for you. I think the exchange with northwind where you denied examples were given yet another then argued etc sums you up on here tbh. i dont want to join in feeding you tbh and its a shame as you are clearly bright

Fine but,i 'm just trying to be clear, you admit it is a possibility

Read it again.

As I said - there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was "triggered" by a god is, to put it mildly, risible.

Charlie and Ro5ey - just one irrefutable item of proof, just one cast iron piece of evidence that can be tested by a third party. Go on, just one. Otherwise V8 looks to have summed it all up rather well IMO.

In the same vein Charlie, do you also agree that there may be a possibility that God does not exist, even a probability at which you would laugh?

Read it again.

I did, except you edited out the bit of my quote which was a the same as what you said.

Why did you do that?

In the same vein Charlie, do you also agree that there may be a possibility that God does not exist, even a probability at which you would laugh?

Yes.

For clarity and focus.

i said

Fine but,i 'm just trying to be clear, you admit it is a possibility,even if you would laugh at the probability.

You said

As I said - there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was "triggered" by a god is, to put it mildly, risible.

They are the same thing aren't they? Why cut out he bit of my quoute which actually made them the same thing,then ask me to read again.

Well, if clarity and focus are what you are after, then a simple yes or no, would suffice.

Well, if clarity and focus are what you are after, then a simple yes or no, would suffice.

For you, maybe.

But thanks for your input, you moron.

At this revelation of attitude, despite my reputation for being something of a "rottweiler" in these matters, I take my leave...

Just checking if he was reading.

Wow, that's a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.

But thanks for your input, you moron.
At this revelation of attitude, despite my reputation for being something of a "rottweiler" in these matters, I take my leave...

This wasn't even directed at you, but when asked a direct question you chose to take offence and leave. Do you happen to live in Tower Hamlets?

So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.

There's two flaws in this.

1) You appear to be suggesting that in the absence of a definite explanation, all possibilities are equally likely, which is silly. Say I find a dead bird in my garden; I don't know what killed it, but that doesn't mean that aliens from the planet Splot are 'just as likely' an explanation as that ginger tom from two doors down.

2) You know, it's ok not to know things. We don't absolutely know lots of stuff about the Earth and the universe around us, but fortunately for us nature does not require our understanding in order to get on with things.

Retro-fitting "god did it" as a convenient explanation for anything we don't understand is a cop-out; it's the same sort of lies-to-children story as the stork bringing babies. And one the biggest issues I have with it is that it doesn't actually answer anything, it just rephrases the same question. If a god did it, where did he come from?

Big questions often have difficult, complicated answers, and sometimes no answers at all. And that's ok.

Wow, that's a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.

Good, that's what i understand too.

I personally believe the Catholic Church is quite evil. In many cases they are more interested in maintaining power and influnce, rather than doing whats morally right, just off the top of my head:

- protecting those who sexually abuse children and in (granted isolated cases) punishing the victims ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9153676/Dutch-Roman-Catholic-Church-castrated-at-least-10-boys.html)

- no condoms, even in AIDS ridden areas of Africa becuase it's better that more catholics are created rather than controlling the spread of disease.

- virtually everyone I have met who went to a catholic school has a story about evil nuns and/or getting battered by those in charge.

Rogertgecat, won't happen, religion is all about faith, they're inseparable. Without faith there's no religion. Facts take away the faith bit. If you could prove the exsistance of god ( any one of them would do it) that's pretty much the end of any/ all religions So, it's in the best interests of the churches to be as obscure as they can. Otherwise they pretty much disappear in a puff of logic. If god exsists you don't need a church....

Ergo trying to argue the toss with religion using facts ain't going to get very far.

1) You appear to be suggesting that in the absence of a definite explanation, all possibilities are equally likely, which is silly. Say I find a dead bird in my garden; I don't know what killed it, but that doesn't mean that aliens from the planet Splot are 'just as likely' an explanation as that ginger tom from two doors down.

Not at all, i asked Woppit for a more likely explanation. He said there wasn't one.

2) You know, iit's ok not to know things. We don't absolutely know lots of stuff about the Earth and the universe around us, but fortunately for us nature does not require our understanding in order to get on with things.

Of course it's ok to not know things, apart fromanything else, i think, this is what faith is based on.

Retro-fitting "god did it" as a convenient explanation for anything we don't understand is a cop-out; it's the same sort of lies-to-children story as the stork bringing babies. And one the biggest issues I have with it is that it doesn't actually answer anything, it just rephrases the same question. If a god did it, where did he come from?

i agree, but often people suggest pseudo-scientific explanations for things they don't understand, most commonly ohnthat was due to evolution. I don't say evolution is wrong only that it should not be used as a glib response tomwhy things are the way they are anymore than God should. I oly ask that people have an understanding of the science tomwhich they attribute the causal mechanism. Case in point below.

Big questions often have difficult, complicated answers, and sometimes no answers at all. And that's ok

Yup, but I'm sure you agree, we should keep looking.

- no condoms, even in AIDS ridden areas of Africa becuase it's better that more catholics are created rather than controlling the spread of disease.

Have you looked at the data?

Wow, that's a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.

Good, that's what i understand too.

Good, I am glad we agree that some unprovable idea - let's call it God - has influenced a group of "people" to impose the threat of eternal damnation upon other people, unless they obey the rules set by the "people" in charge.

i asked Woppit for a more likely explanation. He said there wasn't one.

Well, no, he said he didn't have one, not that there wasn't one.

I don't say evolution is wrong only that it should not be used as a glib response tomwhy things are the way they are anymore than God should. I oly ask that people have an understanding of the science tomwhich they attribute the causal mechanism.

Sure, and I'd love it if that could be the case. But as I said before, these things are complicated and difficult. So, the amount of explanation people are actually capable of understanding will vary wildly between individuals and, with the best will in the world, most people are not scientists.

Even with simplified examples, people still misunderstand. For instance, "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" People poking holes in TBBT usually follow the same format too; they fundamentally misunderstand the theory and then adopt the opinion that it's wrong.

Yup, but I'm sure you agree, we should keep looking.

Of course. And as far as I'm aware, we are.

Good, I am glad we agree that some unprovable idea - let's call it God - has influenced a group of "people" to impose the threat of eternal damnation upon other people, unless they obey the rules set by the "people" in charge.

I preferred it the way you said it first time, lets leave it at that, unless you are actually looking to argue.

Well, no, he said he didn't have one, not that there wasn't one.

To be fair, he said that one was not available.

Sure, and I'd love it if that could be the case. But as I said before, these things are complicated and difficult. So, the amount of explanation people are actually capable of understanding will vary wildly between individuals and, with the best will in the world, most people are not scientists.

Even with simplified examples, people still misunderstand. For instance, "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" People poking holes in TBBT usually follow the same format too; they fundamentally misunderstand the theory and then adopt the opinion that it's wrong.

Sure but it works both ways, people will claim a scientific explanation, with a fundamental misunderstandng of the science.

At it's most basic level, you get this with flight. If someone argued that god held aeroplanes in the air, and someone else argued that no it was purely due to air flowing over the top faster than it went under. Both show a pack uf understanding of science.

And a follow up question, do you know anything beyond some basics about the big bang?

If I may? ([i]repetition number 14,000,053[/i])

The "Big Bang Theory" was a pejorative term coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge cosmologist and mathematician, who was a proponent of the static universe. He considered the idea of an expanding universe to be pseudo-science. However, it was catchy and stuck.

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [l?m?t?] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[1][2] He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'

And Le Maitre said that God done it. 😉

Has this thread considered the meaning of the words 'faith' and 'belief' yet? (And saying it's 'just semantics' isn't allowed, unless you also want to debate language, linguistics and communication at large...)

There are some slightly rabid sounding atheists on here accusing religious people of closed-mindedness when it seems to me that the ability to put your faith in something unbelievable (death and resurrection, for example) points to an open mind. And it's the atheists who are sounding closed-minded on this thread, whereas in my experience the more spiritual your nature, the more inclined you are to see and accept the differences in others (differences of religious outlook, sexuality, etc); and the more likely you are to see and to be able to deal with doubt, duality and hypocrisy.

Of course there is no direct link between spirituality and political ambition or position within the church - so the activities causing much populist outrage at the moment (legitimately, in all probability) still do not represent the religious or spiritual inner workings of most people who see themselves as religious.

Sure but it works both ways, people will claim a scientific explanation, with a fundamental misunderstandng of the science. At it's most basic level, you get this with flight.

<nods> agreed, and an excellent example.

I guess the question then is, does it matter? If people misunderstand or oversimplify the science, that doesn't necessarily devalue the scientists who understand it properly. Ie, it doesn't make those Theories wrong.

Maybe the problem comes when you're arguing [i]against [/i]something you don't really understand. When this happens, you can approach it as a learning opportunity, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and shout loudly.

I'm not a scientist, I'm at best an enthusiastic amateur. I have to take it on face value - have "faith" if you like - that a lot of very clever people are broadly in agreement that this is how things are, based on craploads of research and other very clever people trying to prove them wrong and generally reaching a consensus. For instance, I have no doubt that atoms exist, but I've neither the means nor the understanding to prove that for myself.

Whilst the same could be said to an extent about religion, the difference is that no-one seems to be able to agree (even within the same faith, let alone between different ones) and so the whole thing then becomes an exercise in who can make up the least implausible story.

putting your faith in something unbelievable (death and resurrection, for example) points to an open mind.

The problem there is, an open mind lets any old crap in if you let it.

Have an open mind by all means, just back it up with a little scepticism and critical thinking.

"And it's the atheists who are sounding closed-minded."

Surely not.

I thought they had all personnal tried finding God, rather than just dismissing faith without even giving it a good go themselves.

Dorset . I think most atheists aren't bothered by any individuals spirituality, most have issues around the special status given in society to churches ( my short hand for religious organisations) one only has to look at the sad case of cardinal o'brian to see the hypocrisy and self delusion required*

Edit: *by him personally ( I've just read that back and it sounds more than a little pejorative, apologies)

I thought they had all personnal tried finding God, rather than just dismissing faith without even giving it a good go themselves.

Which god? I see over 3000 to have a bash at: [url= http://www.godchecker.com/ ]http://www.godchecker.com/[/url]

I only have a finite life. I can't believe in them *all*. I'd never get the washing done or go out biking or owt.

You know, I'd reject the suggestion that all atheists are closed-minded or are only atheists because we've never tried not to be.

There's plenty of born-again atheists, for a start; quite a few have discussed that a way back on this very thread. Plenty more will have come to their own conclusions by other routes, but I'd be surprised if many had just never given it any thought at all. As we've discussed previously, religion can be non-trivial to avoid.

(Actually, I'd reject the assumption that "all" of a given demographic are anything, really)