Potus ???

[Stubby]

Agreed. Science is not able to say there is no God, but in exactly the same way that it is not able to say that there are no unicorns.

I am not saying categorically that there is no God. I lack the belief in one, (or any of the many) simply because there is no verifiable evidence that any of them exist and the religious doctrines from which faith is derived are literally unbelievable in my opinion. Science is steadily eroding away the tenets of religious faith, and I agree with Big J that eventually it will become redundant.

 

Would be great to meet up. The work you do sounds fascinating and must be hugely rewarding. I'd love to learn more about it. I'm sure the model would transfer well to woodland management, if I had the balls to set it up!

 

I know there is a God coz he hates me . We have never got on at all . Its when he is board that it all goes wrong . He keeps thinking up thing to piss me off like a broken leg etc etc

[wrsni]

There is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the existence of a divine creator.

 

Of-course not, nor will there ever be (although I'd probably substitute your "credible" with "physical").

 

That's why some of us have what is called "faith".

[Stubby]

Of-course not, nor will there ever be (although I'd probably substitute your "credible" with "physical").

 

That's why some of us have what is called "faith".

 

I would beg to differ ...see above

[10 Bears]

Got a point there, but just so you know - Snopes is an elderly couple in a mobile home funded by George Soros and has a hidden Left bias. Just saying.

 

Ha - really? I had never heard of snopes before, it was just the first article that came up with a contra-overview to make my point, hence my comment, "and of course the sources should be subject to further scrutiny".

 

It was just an example of the lies, counter lies and utter nonsense you get on the web dressed up as 'real facts'. I will admit I've been guilty of it myself in the past - I'm certain I've quoted the 97% fact to someone ... and believed it was true because I read it on the web!

 

It just goes to show that folk (and I certainly include myself here!) should drill down a little deeper and do their own research/come to their own conclusions before repeating and defending web-facts, although it can often be difficult to get to the original research/article - and again who often has the time?

 

Either way, the lesson is; proceed with caution...

[matelot]

Of-course not, nor will there ever be (although I'd probably substitute your "credible" with "physical").

 

That's why some of us have what is called "faith".

 

Over the millennia mankind has worshiped many different gods and practiced many different religions. Why do you think you are worshipping the "correct" god and everyone else has got it wrong?

[wrsni]

Why do you think you are worshipping the "correct" god and everyone else has got it wrong?

 

Well that escalated quickly!!!!!!

 

One mention of the concept of "faith" and we're in to the usual territory of "worship", "gods", and (I assume) religious intolerance, without me mentioning or even hinting at any of them.

 

I was merely pointing out that the very concept of "faith" does not require proof, and if you require proof then you are lacking in faith.

[matelot]

merely pointing out that the very concept of "faith" does not require proof, and if you require proof then you are lacking in faith.

 

Fair enough, it's just when I was a kid I watched programmes on the ancient Egyptians/ Greeks/ Romans/ Vikings etc. It made me realise that they all worshipped different gods. It then made me question why the Christian religion was right and all the others wrong.

 

It would be a right bummer if the ancient religions were right and we are all wrong. Maybe the ancient Egyptians were right and the gods are angry that no one is building pyramids anymore.

[jomoco]

I'm often amused by the distinct possibility that science itself is a tool of god.

 

None but a handful believed in the power of the atomic bomb till it made it's world debut.

 

Pick your poison, Hindu, Moslem, Christian or whatever, the first that can prove it's worth by providing tangible touchable indisputable benefit to it's believers, wins the ballgame.

 

Does a sick priest or pope at death's doorstep, pray to be cured, or go to the nearest hospital to see if medical science can help them?

 

Are there metaphorical A bombs ticking away inside all of us, awaiting discovery?

 

Jomoco

[difflock]

Despite being reared country Presbyterian, by a reasonably God fearing mother, I simply could not believe in any religon, both our children independently came to the same conclusion, despite "churching" probably directly as a result of RE being rammed down their throats at school, on the basis of "stop asking awkward questions I cannot answer, you just gotta have faith".

And unfortunately, on balance, the various religons down through the milliena have undoubtdly done much more harm than good.

BUT, for whatever reason the bulk of the populace seem to need a creed to follow, blindly or otherwise.

Be it sport or Church or new BMW's.

I think the Bahai faith are probably nearest the "truth", in their core beliefs and many uncertainies, but the key is striving to do good, for others as well as oneself.

This based on sketchy knowledge gleaned from our son who forged strong friendships within the local Bahai community as an aldoscent, and ourselves meeting some of the parents of his friends.

[jomoco]

Which begs the question of whether belief in some form of deity is inherent to being human?

 

Everyone believes in A bombs, because seeing is believing.

 

Keeping one's powder dry until definitive proof is evident, seems prudent.

 

Jomoco