Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Brian Cox and the Wonders of Life....in other words more scientific propaganda.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 338 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 09:08:01 GMT
Bellatori says:
"Bellatoris (sic) freedom to think as he has been taught"

Pathetic... cheap and trite.

YOU are caged in by your belief system. For you to go outside that cage is to be a hypocrite. I, at least, can use my intellect and can chose.

Heinlein has people like yourself bang to right.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 09:28:49 GMT
Bellatori says:
C. A. Small says: "Diane will never accept that atheism is just a lack of a belief. She has had it explained to her ad nauseum, and still willfully misconstrues it."

Here is another RAH quote... as I have said earlier he has her banged to rights....!!

"Never try to teach a pig to sing, you waste your time, and annoy the pig."

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 09:48:17 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 10:03:19 GMT
C. A. Small says:
DB- if you used reason and logic you would come to a different conclusion, it is the absence of these that leads you to your present predicament.

That you find chanting dirges to a mythological sky fairy your favourite time of the week, is terribly sad. There must be a terribly big chunk of life missing.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 10:11:44 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Pret withdraws 'Virgin Mary' crisps‎
17 hours ago
'Sandwich shop chain Pret A Manger withdraws its "Virgin Mary"-flavoured crisps following complaints from Catholics.
BBC News16 '

Hi Clive - there's Catholic reason and logic for you! Nothing important going on in the world to worry about then...

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 11:05:25 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Hi Karen- yes I saw this, the catholics and muslims do love being offended don't they? I wonder how they would survive if they just turned the other cheek!

I find churches and mosques offensive - sometimes beautiful buildings with astonishing craftsmanship, but their whole raison d'etre is wrong. But I do not write letters to the planning authority asking they be shut down!

It does seem that we have to tolerate them, but they have no comprehension of tolerance.

Did you see the news last nght from Mali? A very beautiful Malian ( is that correct??) girl, was grinning from ear to ear, waving with her multicoloured scarf, and was joyful because she was no longer being forced to wear the tardis outfit forced on her by the previous Islamic overlords. This brief item said as much as anyone needs to know about the hideous nature of religion.

I am now going for a cold walk through the woods and fields with my lovely wife, leading two horses, before a lunch and an afternoon of six nations rugby ( yesterday's matches were brilliant), so much nicer than singing dirges to an imaginary friend.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 12:16:27 GMT
mikel says:
An open mind is the greatest thing anyone has, sorry to see yours is closed by an avalanche of scepticism.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 12:29:07 GMT
mikel says:
far away across the fields the tolling of the iron bells
calls the faithful to their knees to hear the softly spoken magic spells.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 13:36:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Feb 2013 13:50:45 GMT
"An open mind is the greatest thing anyone has"

Agreed.

"sorry to see yours is closed by an avalanche of scepticism"

Hold it. You're telling us having an open mind is good, then you're telling us that questioning is bad. That's a bit like saying you're not a pyromaniac - you just really, really enjoying setting things on fire.

Doesn't make sense.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 13:49:50 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
What bothers me is that it's a short hop from being offended by the name on a packet of crisps, to issuing fatwas to cartoonists, artists and authors. If the self righteous need to issue threats or have a tantrum every time someone hurts their feelings, perhaps they need to look at how solid the foundations of their beliefs really are. It's called bullying, whichever way you look at it.

Enjoy your lovely walk Clive, I've got a feeling I'll be watching the rugby too!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 14:13:04 GMT
Ian says:
Simon no longer questions - he has long since made his mind up.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 14:25:05 GMT
skepticism is just another name for confirmation bias, which is a fallacy.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 14:49:36 GMT
Bellatori says:
glorify the LORD says: "skepticism is just another name for confirmation bias, which is a fallacy."

Skepticism is a practice of those who do not suffer from credulity, gullibility and ignorance.

Posted on 3 Feb 2013 14:51:32 GMT
We'll agree to disagree on that one.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 14:53:22 GMT
Charlieost says:
Hello Greatrex. Interesting poem. So above your list of dislikes of Professor Cox which are all to do with his appearance his unbelief comes top. So obviously you have been neither listening or observing. PC believes in a lot of things and is quite prepared to explain why he believes.

I have yet to find a Christian who can give me a satisfactory explanation of why he or she believes in God. Perhaps you will be the first. Please feel free to have a go.

With anticipation. C

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 17:59:00 GMT
Bellatori says:
I gave you a plus vote. I think you are wrong but it is fair comment...

As you say, we disagree but then... so what? If we all agreed then what would be the point of the forums? Mutual back patting is pretty nauseating at best...!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 18:43:27 GMT
Ian says:
Nice to see the voting system being used in that way (I occasionally add a yes to opinions I disagree with - it would be nice if Amazon had a separate button for agree/disagree). If we all agreed I wouldn't be hear giving my opinion and reading those of others as there would be nothing to learn and it would be incredibly dull.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Feb 2013 11:19:58 GMT
AJ Murray says:
light,

-"People are breathing the air, living on Earth and cultivating the land, drinking the water, doing what they feel like doing with the energy they have and using the energy that is available to them..."

Okay.

-"...this shows that God is still here."

This is a classic non-sequitur. How does it show that God (singular) is active at all? You've not shown that the list above logically leads towards a god.

-"Even if this universe would be sucked into a wormhole God would send another one because God is active and never ending."

Nothing more than an assertion based on nothing.

-"Energy never ends, it may change, but it never ends."

This is a form of argument i've seen used before, you basically assert that God=energy, but as we know energy is defined as the work that is contained within a system and doesn't denote sentience or intelligence.

God is a carrot.
Carrots exist,
therefore God exists.

Posted on 4 Feb 2013 14:39:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 5 Feb 2013 13:35:27 GMT
G. Heron says:
Did anyone see the most recent programme, it showed how the tiny bones found in the ear were evolved from bones in the jaws of fish. This highlights the major difference between evolution and creationism. Evolution cannot start with a blank sheet, it is always working on an existing life form and the variation within that species. A god on the other hand can create each individual species from scratch, he is not constrained in any way. When we look at the natural world we see that it is the evolutionary model that explains the life forms we see.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Feb 2013 01:50:27 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 13 Feb 2013 23:00:32 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Feb 2013 09:44:39 GMT
Ian says:
"It seems to me that there is some kind of intelligence behind life, especially when I look at how compicated reproduction is and all the working systems that come together to make 1 being."

Read The Blind Watchmaker

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Feb 2013 10:39:55 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Excellent book, I'm saving it to give to my catholic grandson when he's old enough. I'm sure his parents won't mind.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Feb 2013 10:58:08 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Hi light,

-"God is not a man to me or any other type of deity, God is the Highest Power that has many other powers beneath him. God is not a man or a woman, but to make things easier I say, him, for lack of a better word. God is life and everything it entails, so in this way God is one, (singular), but the oneness of God entails everything, (plural)."

So god is not a deity? Why label it God, and why then capitalise it in that fashion? You also simply assume that for any set of powers there is some pinnacle, and that the pinnacle always resides in the same entity. This assumption appears to be baseless.

-"I've noticed, in the few books that I've read concerning science, that scientists are working very hard to prove that there is a field that unites everything. I can tell you that the ancient mystics already say that there is a field that exists like that. Science just has to prove it, I hope that good things will come out of the find."

In the words of Pauli; 'This is not even wrong'.

Ancient mystics tend to talk in vague metaphors, it means that those who follow said mystics have ample enough wiggle room to fit their words to concrete examples around them. Astrology uses the same trick. At no point do these mystics actually display any knowledge of the concepts they witter on about, nor do they ever tranlsate their imaginings into anything useful or concrete. But then that is the whole point. Mystics have nothing to gain by being shown to be wrong and everything to gain from people interpreting their words as being correct.

Scientists aren't 'working very hard to prove a field that unites everything' because that is not how science operates. There is ongoing investigation into the Higgs field which can be said to cause mass and a paradigm for a unified 'theory of everything', although that seems to be beyond us at present. What we do know is that our current models are incomplete, that's because we don't have a model for gravity at the quantum level.

-"The way I see it, the Universe is alive with vibrating particles, is there any part of the Universe that doesn't have particles that move? I could say that the Universe is God but that would not cover everything that I think God is."

Needs more cowbell.

-"Would a unifying field make it possible for the past, present and future to happen at the same time?"

If you examine your sentence you may be able to see why it is nonsensical. In order for things to happen, they require a timeline in which to occur. If past, present and future are all simultaneous... they cannot 'happen'.

-"I've just read, in a science book, that there is a theory about universes being sucked into holes and new ones being created all the time, is this theory accepted by most scientists? So according to the way I believe in God wouldn't this theory go along with my beliefs?"

I doubt anything will not marry your beliefs being as they are so general a vague with nothing concrete about them that could lead to being in conflict with anything we discover. I'm not certain that your recall of this theory is correct, since what is hypothesised about black holes and the eventual heat death of the universe doesn't involve it being sucked into holes.

-"God = energy is only part of it, of course I don't have the knowledge to explain more than that. It seems to me that there is some kind of intelligence behind life, especially when I look at how compicated reproduction is and all the working systems that come together to make 1 being. I know that you've seen this all before but to me everything in the universe is complicated and has it's own purpose in the realm of things."

That meaning or purpose appears to be something humans are good at imposing on the world, we see patterns everywhere and it would be unusual if you didn't react the way you do. Even a simple colon and single bracket can be recognised as resembling a face:

:)

But that pattern is not something real in the sense that it is not inherent in how things operate. That complexity that we find so astonishing is a result of simple interactions and the fact is that we are chemically based, and the origins for that is itself simpler chemical interactions. Over recent years mathematics has developed several models that explain how complexity and patterns arise from random noise, and randomness appears to be at the base of our reality.

-"What would happen if one of our planets would explode would it have a devastating effect on the earth? That's a serous question, BTW."

Unlikely to be devastating in terms of gravity, even one of the nearer ones such as Mars or Venus exert only a small amount on our planet. That's because gravity is subject to the inverse square law. As distance increases gravitational pull decreases *very* dramatically. Something that moves to twice as far away exerts a quarter of the gravitational pull, something three times further away exerts a ninth of the gravitational pull. To put this in perspective the planet Mars exerts the same gravitational force on you as a 50 ton lorry parked 14 metres away. Essentially there is nothing discernable. We would be in more danger of any debris that resulted from such an explosion crossing our orbit and falling into our gravity well. Something as small as a 7m diameter piece of rock has the equivelent force of the Hiroshima bomb when it hits our Earth.

-"You are describing a pantheist point of view, but I tend to go more for the panentheist point of view, although not completely. I can't say that my beliefs fit into any one category of God. God isn't actually a carrot but a part of God is in the carrot and makes up the carrot, but not limited to the carrot. God manifests himself through energy and energy is used to make a carrot, so although God is in the carrot he is not the carrot, but the carrot is a manifestation of God's energy."

It's a vague enough claim that actually has little meaning beyond yourself. God manifesting as a carrot doesn't deter me from eating it, nor does it seems to accord with there being an intelligence present in either the carrot or the universe. Intelligence is, as far as we are aware, correlated solely with physical minds and they are complex. Your claim doesn't actually present you with any real purpose or meaning, nor does it provide a framework for morality or your dealings with other humans. I think you get those from your surroundings and interactions with others.

-"Can you recommend a good book by Stephen Hawking? Thanks"

The Grand Design is the most recent one i've read, i though rather well thought out but for an intrioduction to cosmology i cannot recommend Cosmos by Carl Sagan, highly enough.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2013 02:09:54 GMT
light says:
Thanks I.N. I'll look into it.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Feb 2013 02:54:24 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 13 Feb 2013 23:00:45 GMT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  338
Initial post:  20 Jan 2013
Latest post:  1 Mar 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions