Christian fundamentalists in Britain

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kudistos Megistos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kudistos Megistos

Guest
As if we didn't already have enough trouble with Islamic fundamentalists, American-style evangelical movements have been popping up across Britain, ready to oppose evolution teaching in schools and gay rights, and accuse everyone else of intolerance.


Their opposition to the Mosque in part four was amusing. We should give guns to them and to the people who want to build the Mosque, then let them fight it out. The biggest winner would be society.

I was also amused by the bird shitting on that man's shirt. A message from god, clearly. The message seems to be "STFU".

This documentary raises two questions.

Firstly, why do religious people think they're being discriminated against if they aren't given special privileges? I'm aware that this mentality is common amongst a lot of groups, but it seems to be particularly strong amongst them. They seem to think it's discrimination if they're not allowed to force everyone else to do what they want and to discriminate against people they don't like, or who remind them of aspects of their own personality that they would rather keep hidden in a certain kind of cabinet or small room used for the purpose of hanging clothes.

Secondly, can we ship these idiots off to America like we did in the olden days? Australia used to be the dumping ground for our criminals and America used to be the dumping ground for our fundies*. We should bring those policies back

*inb4 Bosola tells us that the number of fundies who went to America and the number of convicts who went to Australia is exaggerated and that most people emigrated for economic reasons
 
I just think as a race, we should have evolved past the need for a belief in an omnipotent being.  However, people are too brainwashed to realize what the concept of "god" was, and the concept of "god" is so indefinable that it's impossible to prove it doesn't exist, because the concept is so vague.  It's like saying the pillow behind me is invisible and ethereal, but it's there.  How do I know, you ask?  Simple, because I know, I don't need evidence to prove to you that there's an invisible ethereal pillow behind me, it's there, case closed, and nothing you can ever say or prove will ever prove me wrong.
 
This is what I get for believing in a god. Stupid religious people do stupid things and then everyone thinks that anyone who is religious is automatically like that, because people just look at what the extremists do.

Well fuck me sideways.

I'm not saying I go to church much (or at all), but still, its annoying.
 
This is what I get for believing in a god. Stupid religious people do stupid things and then everyone thinks that anyone who is religious is automatically like that, because people just look at what the extremists do.

Well fuck me sideways.

I'm not saying I go to church much (or at all), but still, its annoying.
Click to expand...
I would just like to note that I do not dislike religion from a "holy shit, fundies are nuts" perspective.  I just find logical flaws with the very concept of religion.  It seems, to me, much harder to believe in a god, than to not believe in a god.  Don't think that I don't respect your right to believe in a god either, I just dislike religion.
 
I just think as a race, we should have evolved past the need for a belief in an omnipotent being.
Click to expand...
Whilst religion is fake and rubbish there is no way to know if there is something greater than ourselves be it a being or a law or whatever outside of our scope of understanding.  I think it is just as silly to say there definitely isnt as to say definitely is.  Also, where the big bang came from or how will never be answered by science.  Science cannot explain where science came from.

The belief in God or a being isn't the issue here, it is the ideologies ( religions) which surround the idea and indoctrinate people.  I don't go church, I don't believe in religion or "god" as a physical being in the sky, but equally I do believe there has to be something greater.  That doesn't mean I have to follow a religion to believe that.  I don't know what is out there or why we are here. I only know it is unlikely to be a simple explosion from nowhere which explains everything.

I also know that religion is a load of man made rubbish.  One should not confuse creator argument with religion.  It is possible to believe in God or creator without the need to follow any religion or ideology.  If one follows the basics, no murder, no steal, no hurt, the world would be a better place.  We don't need an ideology to tell us what is good and bad.

It is stark raving obvious.

edit.  It is when religious ideology tells its followers what to do that we get problems.  It is in the interpretation of what god wants too often and in reality, God is not to be found in any of these books.  Just human imagination.

edit 2.  And some times it isn't down to interpretation and that is worse

Mohammed is God's apostle.  Those who follow him are ruthless
 to the unbelievers but merciful to one another"  Quran 48:29

Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
 
Last edited:
Also, where the big bang came from or how will never be answered by science.  Science cannot explain where science came from.
Click to expand...
Actually M-Thoery offers a logical explanation for the cause of the big bang. Unfortunately most people don't know, don't understand, or don't care to study theoretical physics and people still relentlessly use this as an excuse for disproving science in general. Not that I am saying that is what your doing. However it is just what it sounds like a theory, which is the beauty of science. The basis of science is that your discoveries will always be proven entirely wrong or expanded upon without exception. Which is the exact opposite of the organized religious goal. Although they take it upon themselves to alter these “ancient” texts whenever something doesn't coencide with their agenda.

I have no problem with a belief in god, I actually believe in a higher existence myself, but to my mind the key flaw and endless problem of organized relgion is this.

the farther you stray from the ideals set by your relgious text, the more respectable you become in the religious community. For example people who believe in jesus and his teaching yet wage wars for nothing other than blind greed. When you refuse to allow yourself to be proven wrong, in general, you delute and distort the foundations of your mind and therefore any society you have dominion or sway over.

SCIENCE FTW!!!!
 
Actually M-Thoery offers a logical explanation for the cause of the big bang.

It offers a complete theory, 1 of many and is totally and utterly unprovable.   Even Dawkins acknowledges that where the laws of science came from and how, is a question that is unlikely to ever be answered.
 
Actually M-Thoery offers a logical explanation for the cause of the big bang.

It offers a complete theory, 1 of many and is totally and utterly unprovable.   Even Dawkins acknowledges that where the laws of science came from and how, is a question that is unlikely to ever be answered.
Click to expand...
exactly my point. Sorry for the grammar erros I'm on a phone. Essentially what I believe is that the universe is emergant, or ever expanding and changing, therefor the scientific method is much more useful because it mimics the fabric of the universe. Nothing is absolutely right, nothing is safe from being changed or thrown out all together. Religion is the exact opposite because it fights against the nature of the universe by spreading static, outdated and unchangeable under the penalty of the exile or death.
 
I agree :)  Religion isn't there to help people... it is there to tell people what to do and what to believe and give false hope and comfort to people that death is not the end and that there is a greater good (who knows maybe there is, but it aint found in those books).

Religion may have provided an evolutionary advantage at 1 point, in terms that it allows a human mind to cope with the harsh reality of life and death.  Nowadays it has run its course and is a burden...  just like some human emotions also turn out to be a burden.

Religion has had its day.  It is the enemy of science and progress and freedom.
 
Last edited:
Even Dawkins acknowledges that where the laws of science came from and how, is a question that is unlikely to ever be answered.
Click to expand...
If Dawkins said that (and it sounds like a misquote), he's clearly going senile.

Science has time and time again explained things that people had previously thought were inexplicable. It has done things that were literally unimaginable to people who lived a few hundred years earlier.

The assumption that we have now reached the limit, and that what has not yet been explained will never be explained, is a supremely arrogant and yet depressingly common one.

I rather wager that, just as science today answers questions thought unanswerable 100 years ago, the science of 2111 will answer questions that some people today think are unanswerable.
 
Science has time and time again explained things that people had previously thought were inexplicable

Explaining where itself came from is not possible and is completely different thing. Most scientists I would think, would agree.  Dawkins certainly does.  Hardtalk, BBC (I think it was).  Dawkins is not senile, he is simply rational.

How do you explain where time comes from in a place where it does not exist?  How do you explain things that defy how you are even alive?  It is not possible.  Science explains things that are theoretically possible to explain.  It isn't theoretically possible imho to explain where a law comes from by the laws themselves.  That is logical.  That's why dawkins agrees.

Science has never once proved or explained how the universe came into being (it explains it by the start but not the cause) or where the laws of science came from and it never will.

proving any of those theories is impossible.  It is just as impossible to prove if there is a god or not.  I am afraid you are going to be a very disappointed person if you expect science to answer everything.  It won't.

You can't use science to explain where science came from, because you are using science, which is limited to its own existence, and not to how and where it came from, which exist outside of the laws of science that we live by.

edit:

moreover, even if it were possible, which it almost certainly isn't...  the human race is unlikely to survive long enough to even realise that dream.  I can guarantee you that we will never know where and how the laws came into being.  So far, so good from my side of the argument.  :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Science has time and time again explained things that people had previously thought were inexplicable

Explaining where itself came from is not possible and is completely different thing.
Click to expand...
I'll wager people 200 years ago would have said exactly the same thing about explaining where life came from, or how big or old the universe was. These things were unimaginable to them because they didn't even know how to solve the problem. We can see how wrong they were, just as people in 200 years time will see how wrong we were, when they will (probably) have tools at their disposal to do things we currently think are impossible.

Hey, I'll let you into a little secret. People thousands of years ago lacked certain simple mathematical concepts; to them, certain questions that modern primary school children can solve were deemed impossible to answer, even in theory. Even mere hundreds of years ago, people had no concept of how to solve things that we now teach to high school children. Just get in your time machine and ask Descartes a question that requires calculus to solve. He would not only tell you that he couldn't do it, but also that it was unanswerable; he would say this with the same certainty with which you claim that we'll never know how the universe was created.
How do you explain where time comes from in a place where it does not exist?  How do you explain things that defy how you are even alive?  It is not possible.  Science explains things that are theoretically possible to explain.  It isn't theoretically possible imho to explain where a law comes from by the laws themselves.  That is logical.  That's why dawkins agrees.

Science has never once proved or explained how the universe came into being or where the laws of science came from and it never will.
Click to expand...
See, there you go again.

You're assuming that because we don't currently have any concept of how this problem will be solved, we never will.

Science, technology and mathematics constantly find ways to solve problems that were previously thought to be not only unsolvable in practice, but also unsolvable in theory because people (quite naturally, but arrogantly) couldn't think beyond the time they lived in. We can't imagine a world where the origin of the universe is explainable, just like we can't visualise a fourth spacial dimension.

But our inability to visualise things is no reason to think that they can't exist or happen.

proving any of those theories is impossible.  It is just as impossible to prove if there is a god or not.  I am afraid you are going to be a very disappointed person if you expect science to answer everything.  It won't.
Click to expand...
I'll make a little wager with you.

If we're still alive in 100 years time (don't discount the possibility, unless you also think that medical progress has come to a stop) and the scientific consensus is still that these questions are unsolvable, I owe you a coke.
 
well I'm no sure if this is what DLPB meant exactly but the way I understand it is that, based on best evidence so far, we live in a universe that lis literally infinite. Therefore the knowledge laws and concepts that make up the universe are infinite. So under this pretense if science, being an emergant and expandin.g system for understanding, were to completely and comprehensively explain itself entirely at some arbitrary date in the future, it would eventually expand beyond those bounds and become something even greater once new discoveries were made. It would tehn have to be reexamined and explain itself all over again. So under my context of understanding, your essentially both right. Everything we question now can one day be entirely and thoroughly picked apart and understood but by that time there will be a whole new world of questions to answer.

so again...
SCIENCE FTW!
 
prove me wrong  ;D
anyway this just my own opinion based on the things I have study and my own conclusions that have surfaced. Feel free to disagree but for now m theory is solving a lot of previously unsolvable equations in the world of physics and it supports this kind of infinite view of the universe at least in that it does not disprove it or put a cap on it. In my mind, if entire universes are really floating around some space somewere just as a galaxy or a star or tbis planet then why would it end there? Perhaps it does and I'm not syaing it doesn't because the theory is much to underdevoloped to know for sure. It's just what I choose to believe. One of my bests friends brother just got his phd in theoretical physics so he's always talking about this stuff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top