Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
Thats another one I've not seen and like you, I have no intention of watching it.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
Thats another one I've not seen and like you, I have no intention of watching it.
Maybe if you watched the film you would understand the hype :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit Crab
I'm only joking though as i know what you mean. I've always been a bit like that with the Godfather films. I love gangster films like that but I've always just struggled with those for some reason, was only relatively recently i managed to watch the first one in full but i found it a bit of a struggle. Can't really be arsed with the other ones. Why that seems to bother people so much i'll never know.
I'm not massively into films, I fall asleep shortly after starting to watch most of them.
My whole life I've had conversations with people where they just cannot believe the well-known films I've not seen.
That's not to say that there aren't a few that I love. I just don't manage to watch many right through, and I always find it weird that people find that weird.
Die Hard? Beverly Hills Cop? Police Academy?
Not seen them, don't ever want to.
I get the same pish re Braveheart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit Crab
Thought it was only me. "How can you not like The Shawshank Redemption/The Godfather/Pulp Fiction etc?" said my colleagues, shaking their heads in bewilderment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I'm the same. I enjoy some films of course but I can't get overly emotionally involved in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
I actually prefer the start of films and the getting to know the characters part, it's when the actual main part of the story starts that I start to drift off.
I remember everyone raving about Gravity a few years back but by about half way through I was bored of the, admittedly very good, effects and visuals and I just didn't give a toss about any of the characters so couldn't really get into the will they live or not tension.
Never seen a Star Wars movie
There’s a Radio 4 comedy show, think it’s still running, called ‘I’ve Never Seen Star Wars’ where famous people admit to not having done something that loads of people have, then do it and relate their experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by wpj
Some of them are better than others. Probably the best example is Ian Hislop playing Grand Theft Auto
On my list 👍Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Thought I'd wind up previously mentioned colleagues by saying that I didn't know the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. They weren't far off actually rolling about the floor they were in such a state of side-splittingness :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by wpj
I haven't actually watched either.
This links to a different thread but if you like listening to stuff on BBC iPlayer are you familiar with “In Our Time”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
It’s been on every week for years and years now on R4. Melvyn Bragg presents it, he has three guests who are usually Oxbridge dons or similar and he takes a subject. Could be anything, the life of John the Evangelist, the rubber-sheet theory of the universe, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Roman Empire, the fall of man in Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’.
Bragg keeps things moving by asking very direct questions of his experts, who are clearly briefed to respond in an accessible manner. You come away feeling like you’ve had an intellectual version of colonic irrigation.
Never had the irrigation thing so don't know how accurate your comparison is, but R4's the cat's bollocks. Except The Archers and Wumman's Hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Never had irrigation either, I was speculating :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
R4 is good, I drive a lot with work and usually listen to R3 but will change to R4 if it’s a piece of music I really dislike. I’ve stumbled across some absolute gems in the afternoon schedule, usually half an hour long.
Also have got back into listening to the World Service. Used to go to sleep to it in my early twenties, a long time ago now. It’s gently reassuring. I’m getting old :greengrin
Sorry to take the thread off topic, but some of the stuff on iPlayer radio app is really worth listening too. I’m a bit of a technophobe, but we sometimes forget just how good radio can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I listen to The Archers when I'm washing up. It's great.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
Womans work no? :greengrin :duck:
The Sun Bingo advert, bollocks!
Steady Mr Crab! I have delete buttons :na na:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit Crab
People who force their children to go running with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. S
You've got an itchy delete button finger. :greengrin
With your name on it :na na:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit Crab
Toothbrush subscription.
Store security at the doors.
Sometimes it will bleep but I don't understand why some people will actually turn round and go back into the store
even if there is no one at the security desk.
Presuming that they haven't stolen anything, why do they go back in?
Maybe they don't want to bleep if they're going to other shops.Quote:
Originally Posted by pollution
To.make sure i dont have one of those plastic security tags left on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by pollution
In case there is a security tag on a garment that they will struggle to remove once back home is one reason when buying cloths. Not that I need any help removing them ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by pollution
Tricks of the trade learnt from my days in retail security, not old shoplifting skills before anyone asks.
I wish I knew! (And not because I'm a shoplifter!):greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Scouse Hibby
It's happened to me a few times (and didn't even beep, or I'd have known.) Most recently, my daughter bought a top in a shop in London that doesn't have a branch in Scotland. We got home, she found the tag...
I tried a couple of shops to see if they had similar tags, failed, and eventually her big sister cracked it only after trying just about every other shop in town.
On a similar note, I now never refuse a receipt on the self -checkout till, after my receiptless M+S steaks started beeping on my way out the door. They were very good about it, however.
They are all fairly easy mate as it’s a pin held in place by ball bearings and a spring mechanism in most cases. I can do most of them in seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.m
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. S
This was at a Tesco store and I can't imagine their clothes are tagged but good point all the same
Prosecco
Just a cheap/worse version of champagne, which I'm not overly keen on anyway.
It became a big thing amongst women a few years ago and now seems to becoming popular with guys too :confused:
I prefer it to Champagne, I think it tastes better - although I'm not overly keen on either (throw in some flavoured gin and we start getting somewhere though).Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
Given I'm not keen on either - I'd rather sip my way through £9 than £40. :greengrin
I'm the same. Hate champagne and can only take prosecco with flavoured gin or chambord.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
We were at a wedding last year and got three free glasses of prosecco during dinner. I had a hip flask filled with chambord to flavour it. I ended up havibg to go back to the room to refill it as everybody at the table wanted some :greengrin
I can confirm Tesco tags clothes - my missus suffered the fate of discovering the tag when she put the garment on later.Quote:
Originally Posted by pollution
Luckily we had the receipt and a more local branch removed the tag for us.
Funnily enough it DIDN'T beep on the way out, or we wouldn't have taken it home!
People who tell you they don’t like a particular food then confess to never actually trying or tasting that particular food
Old guys who do a sort of running motion but don't actually go any quicker. Guy was at it crossing the road in front of my car this morning. Just walk.
I do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouse Hibby
I just can't look past the texture or the smell of some food.
Realise i'm in the wrong though and i'm a total hypocrite as i give my boy **** for not trying stuff.
Im the same and was really strict with the kids growing up about trying different things as its a pain trying to find places to eat when your fussy. Mostly smell and texture for me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
Having said that my boys made me taste fried octopus ball flavoured juice the other day. It had a marble in the lid that you pushed down and made the liquid fizz. Very bizarre. Vile doesnt come close.
The appeal of lap dancing clubs.
Went to one on a stag do in Budapest and it was terrible.
I wouldn't really have expected octopus' balls to taste anything other than vile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. S
Same here. I was on a boy's weekend in Prague recently where some of the guys would have happily spent the whole weekend in titty bars. Don't get me wrong, I like titties as much as the next guy but there's just something incredibly seedy about these places that makes them sexually sterile in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
I'm also in that category, been to them for stag do's and Xmas nights. It's all a bit meh, and doesn't sit right.
Gives you heartburn. Like paint stripper.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
Have never been in one either and have left groups rather than enter. Too seedy by far.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs
Yep it met my expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouse Hibby
Same here also
Not a fan either, I know a few guys who went to one in Hamburg and bought the "girls" a glass of Champagne and weren't allowed to leave until they paid for the bottle, some €300. Total scam and they fell for it with the old glass of Champagne trick.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs
Religion. I respect people's right to believe in whichever God they believe in, but I find the whole thing mental.
Yep same here, never understand the strong belief in an imaginary diety or god, I respect people's beliefs but just don't get it myself, I'm a good atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
I've never understood racism, we're all the same race, homosapians. No matter what colour we are or how we speak, strip off the skin and we're all the same.
Not a wholly convincing argument, since we'd all be deid without skin!Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
It's easy to understand. People are suspicious of difference, of any kind. That's a primitive response in all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
It's how we deal with that response, however, that defines us.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Racism is as much about fear/suspicion of cultural differences as it is about skin colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
All understandable answers, I just don't get it, I look at each person as a human and take it from there.
I think they're two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
Racism can be debunked pretty easily if racism is the idea that one race is genetically superior to another or there are marked differences. Science can indeed prove that we're pretty much all the same and it's really only ancient stereotypes at play.
Cultural differences are more complicated and can't be resolved by things like common sense or science. Ones that are based on religious beliefs are immune to such scrutiny.
I could go on about the things I don't get when it comes to other cultures but maybe its not for this thread.
You agreed with the poster regarding respecting people's right to believe then you use terms like imaginary :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
It has to be imaginary, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemonade
If you tell me about a cake you've made, I can believe you've made a cake but until I've seen it or touched it, I'm only imagining it even though I firmly and totally believe it's real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
There are no atheists in a fox hole.
Thanks Matty, if God does suddenly appear I'll hold my hand up and say I'm wrong, until then all religious beliefs are a personal thing and all deities are imaginary until such solid evidence is produced.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
I envy folk who can gain some comfort from religion in bad times. Whenever I try praying (every Saturday at 1500 hrs approx) I just embarrass myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
I think there is a place for religion beyond the belief in all the classic stories or even in God.Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
It can, despite the unfortunate misinterpretation that often occurs, provide good guidelines on how to treat others better as well providing people with some sort "point" to life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
Is that not just bringing up your kids showing respect to others, I brought up 3 kids without a hint of religion and they're all normal good living respectful adults with good jobs, houses their own kids etc.
I'm not saying everyone needs it for that reason. Just that it can provide a healthy set of guidelines for people. :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
Hate gays and murder infidels... Great values :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
I don't necessarily disagree with your general point, but I think you're confusing the definition of "imaginary". It's not linked to "imagine" in the way you've suggested in your example.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
I respectfully disagree, and JC's response to my post suggests that I've linked correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Considering how many variations and interpretations of Gods the are, the evidence points to a liberal use of imagination across the religions.
There is only anecdotal evidence of Jesus having existed, for instance, so ideas of what's he looked like and what he did were created from storytelling - to the best of my knowledge there is no archaeological evidence that Jesus existed. There is nothing more than storytelling to evidence God's existence, so He has to be imaginary.
An omnipotent being who is everywhere yet can't be seen, heard, touched, or smelled exists in the heads of those that believe - but whichever way you look at it, that being is imaginary - belief that He is real does not change the fact that He is still imaginary.
I'm trying to explain my point of view without being disrespectful to those that do believe, as each will have their own valid and probation reasons for doing so, and as it's virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, they could well be right and I've an eternity of wishing is made better choices ahead of me so I'm not going to get all smug about it now!
There's another way in which a God might be valid, which doesn't involve archaeological evidence. More a logical thing than archaeological, ie something that has to be, logically, to make good sense of everything else. A bit like the square root of minus one (for which there is also no 'evidence', in the sense that you and no doubt Fife-Hibee crave). The square root of minus one is an imaginary number.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
That's an interesting point, though I don't think that God can be described as the 'has to be'. Maybe at the time of early religion, when our understanding of all that we understand now was significantly less - where you couldn't explain flooding, weather, the sun setting and rising etc through a scientific knowledge - then that might have been appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Imaginary numbers still hold true now because there is no scientific or viable alternative, whereas where Good might have been used to explain why the ground shook or a volcano erupted once upon a time, we can understand why they happen now.
What accepting that he's not everyone's cup of tea, Ricky Gervais explained it well - he said that if you took all we know now, and all the books and internet pages of science and discovery, and religion away and started again, the science books would be re-written more or less as they are now until better evidence is found. Religion wouldn't necessarily be.
That's an interesting idea, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Which is fine, since ideas are every bit as real as cups of tea, even though you can't weigh them, photograph them, etc etc. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
It's a theory more than an idea, and though it would be very difficult you could test it to prove it disprove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
The Universe has been expanding and cooling for billions of years; everything was hotter and denser in the past, and if we extrapolate back arbitrarily far, we'd arrive at a point of infinite density. Theoretically, this was realized as early as the 1920s by cosmologists like Alexandr Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, with the latter calling this state the "primeval atom" from which everything emerged. When the leftover radiation glow predicted by this picture -- shifted into the microwave portion of the spectrum by the Universe's expansion -- was detected in the 1960s, the Big Bang was confirmed. Extrapolate back arbitrarily far, and you arrive at a singularity: where space and time as we know them emerged from.
Only, that picture isn't right. If the Universe's temperature (and hence, its energies) ever rose above a certain point, early on, the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background would be larger than what we observe. The fact that they are only a few parts in 100,000 -- first measured in the early 1990s by COBE -- tells us that there must have been a state before the hot Big Bang that our hot, dense, matter-and-radiation-filled Universe emerged from. There was a prediction made as to what that state would be in the 1980s: cosmic inflation, that set up and gave rise to the Big Bang. The details of what the CMB's fluctuations would be were predicted, and observed to match in gory detail what we observed by COBE, WMAP (2000s) and Planck (2010s). Inflation came before the hot Big Bang. What came before inflation, and honestly, what came before the last 10^-32 seconds of inflation or so, is still a mystery.
Science still can't fully explain the formation of the universe. That isn't proof, or otherwise, for God obviously but it leaves a vacuum (pun intended).
On a different level I find that people often focus on the negatives with regards religion. I could point out that the Catholic church is the biggest non state provider of healthcare in the world for example but that's an irrelevant argument as far as those of us in the developed world are concerned. On a local level churches provide a supportive community for people, often at difficult or emotional times. There's a reason many people turn to the church after a birth, death, marriage etc. I'm sure the same can be said of Mosques, Synagogues, Temples and so on. Religions attract people from a broad church (another pun intended) and much like society in general there are liberals and conservatives, zealots and moderates and so on and so forth.
As recently as 2014 only 13% of Britons described themselves as 'convinced atheists' so whilst people may be turning away from traditional religions (the last 2 census confirm that) I think there is still an underlying belief in the spiritual or 'something'.
For me attending Mass is a quiet time, a time to reflect in which you can't just pick up a phone or turn on the TV and there's generally something to be taken from it. I'm aware that can be achieved in other ways as well. But further it challenges me. For years it was easy to say I was an atheist and it was easy to take a socially liberal stance (I still do in many areas) without thinking of any alternative argument. The truth is i don't know if God exists, the clue is in the word 'faith'. I'd probably describe myself as an agnostic Catholic; I don't view prayer as asking for what I want and expecting it to happen or making bargains with whoever may be listening; it's a chance to focus, a chance to process thought and also a chance to listen.
I'm quite neutral on the religion thing. I know loads of people who take their faith seriously (whichever faith that happens to be) and they are all good people. We all have stories and "evidence" to help explain our world, science explains a great deal but there are still gaps in between. That is where religion can come in, and depending on the gaps you have, there will be some faith that you need.
Most religions and the way they are used are a decent bunch of moral principles, and sadly they seem to be hijacked by a small number of nutters, a small number who are easy to focus on.
It would be fair to say I am a non-believer , but there is a bit of me that regrets beings so, as many religious people do get a comfort and understanding from their faith that I do not.
Peace, man.
Religion is OK on a personal level but organised religion can be dangerous.
It becomes just another way for one set of people to keep control over another lot.
Surely this is now Holy (or not) Ground territory. ;-)
Again, I don't think I disagree with your overall point, just your terminology. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
"Imaginary" means something which does not exist (except in the imagination). In referring to a person's God as imaginary, I think you're inadvertently failing to respect that person's right to believe in that God, which is the opposite of how you described your attitude earlier.
Perhaps "imaginable" might be a better fit for what you've described, but even that doesn't seem quite right.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - whether someone believes or not doesn't make something less imaginary - if something's not imaginary then regardless of belief people would accept its existence, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
I genuinely respect people's beliefs, which is why I'm doing my best (but failing, I think) not to be dismissive. I respect that millions of people around the world believe in the existence of a God of some description, depending on where they were born or how they were brought up etc, and that they have faith that their belief is correct - but the word faith is about believing in something without evidence. If there's no evidence then where does it exist other than in your and other's imagination?
What I respect is that people are entitled to their faith, I respect their strength to hold those beliefs and can see that some people get a lot of comfort from their faith. Personally, I don't get it (hence the post on this very thread) but as an agnostic atheist I'm open to the idea of God if there's evidence to support it.
I'm not demanding that evidence, I'm happy with my position on it - eternity is a long time to deal with that decision if I'm wrong :greengrin
Evidence again. What is your evidence that the number two exists? You can weigh two cups of tea, photograph them, etc. But that's cups of tea. What about the actual number itself, the number two? Are you happy to accept its reality without being able to weigh it, etc? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
How could you test the hypothesis that (paraphrasing, hope without taking any liberties) if we went back to a time when there was no recorded science or religion, after a while we'd end up with the science we have now but not the religion? Genuinely puzzled at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
I understand it to mean that scientific fact would not change because it's governed by the unchanging laws of nature. Religion on the other hand is based on human testimony of unknown or unproven origin and has evolved toQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
fit the needs of the different generations. The laws of science will never change but religion will evolve differently depending on the original narrative.
It's not really the same, though - is it? Without wanting to go into what two is, I am absolutely happy to accept that a 'two' doesn't exist as an entity in its own right. Two is not a reality in itself (there's a sentence I never thought I'd be writing on hibs.net :greengrin).Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
'Two' represents two units of (something), rather than being something itself.
If you want to make the comparison though, two was something that was conceptualised by mankind to help make sense of things that weren't understood at the time. To understand counting, two had to be imagined and explained and shared as an idea (and adopted by others). Which is (IMHO), what happened with religion.
Yes - that's exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Religion and religious stories may still emerge, they may emerge broadly as they are now and there's probably a remote chance that they would emerge identically to the stories that are told to this day.
Exploration of science would always lead to a description of gravity, of the solar system, of evolution, understanding electricity, medicine etc... because science only evolves with discovery and new evidence, and so we would come back eventually to the point where we are at now - and surpass it eventually as new evidence and new theories are proven and disproven.
You couldn't go back in time - the point is if you wiped all books, literature and references to science and religion then the science books and discoveries would definitely be repeated because science proves and disproves theories and discoveries. A scientific fact is only a fact until someone disproves it. When everyone thought the world was flat it took for someone to prove it was a globe for that new science to be written.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Let's imagine there's a nuclear war, and by a quirk of fate only a small, uneducated section of the world's population survived, they have no prior reference points and so are starting fresh - they would eventually discover and understand gravity, electricity, the theory of relativity etc... They might or might not think that the massive explosion was an act of an all powerful being.
Someone can believe in something which is imaginary, but another person can't describe that something as imaginary if they are open to the concept of its existence, regardless of how sceptical they may be about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Of course it's possible to respect a person's beliefs whilst stating you don't believe in the same thing (or anything for that matter), but by saying someone's God (for example) is imaginary, you are saying that God doesn't exist. I don't think you can describe that as respecting a person's beliefs.
Fair enough but I don't think they're mutually exclusive I don't believe that God exists and perhaps it's down to my limitations on how I can explain my thoughts, but I can't think of another way to explain itQuote:
Originally Posted by Future17
A Christian has faith that the being (unsure if that should be 'Being', so if it should, I apologise) that they imagine exists, faith and belief are key words here. Faith is believing in something and having that spiritual conviction, despite a lack of evidence.
God means something different and is something different from person to person. Why is that? It's their interpretation, their imagining of what God is based on what they've read, understood, or been told about Him.
I'm not being disrespectful - at least not purposely - I'm maybe being a little blunt in my description but I think it's a matter of fact word to describe it.
If someone tells me they believe in God, I don't tell them they're wrong - I respect their belief and leave them to it.
Spoiler alert:
If I'm talking to a kid that believes in Santa, they're maybe old enough to have their doubts but still young enough to want to hold on to the belief - maybe even a wee bit worried that if they still believing then they won't get t any presents - in their minds, Santa is real - he exists but we know, as adults who put the presents under the tree , that he only exists in their imagination. A young kid would bet their life on Santa being real - even in the absence of a chimney for him to come down into their house etc. As parents we respect that belief and even nurture it until they reach an age where we have to break it to them that their pals are telling the truth.
I'll point out that I'm not comparing Santa with God, really. Just trying to demonstrate that if something exists in one person's mind but not in another's, then virtually by definition, it's imaginary.
Edit: couple of additional points having re-read your post.
I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm saying that I don't believe He exists, and I'm saying that there isn't evidence to support the existence of a God.
Also, if tomorrow sometime popped up with verifiable evidence to prove the existence of God, then I'd accept happily that I was wrong. Crucially I'm not telling anyone they're right or wrong about it, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove His existence.
I'm the same with zombies, vampires and ghosts - I don't think any of those things exists, I don't believe in magic, but if someone evidenced their existence, I'd change my mind.
So what is the true god?
Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Allah, Vishnu, Guru Nanak, Amaterasu, the plethora of spirits and gods from various tribes and indigenous people from around the globe. Where was this one and only god when these other so called gods were/are being worshipped? Why did this one true god not show himself and tell his children that they are worshipping the wrong gods and there was only him and not the multiple gods that many people worshipped at the time.
Why do you believe this? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
As a definition, that's a tad circular. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Someone invented two? :dunno:Quote:
If you want to make the comparison though, two was something that was conceptualised by mankind to help make sense of things that weren't understood at the time.
Quote:
To understand counting, two had to be imagined and explained and shared as an idea (and adopted by others). Which is (IMHO), what happened with religion.
Huge leap of faith, imo, that if you reran history you'd end up with the same science that prevails today. Are our understanding of electricity, magnetism, gravity etc not products of our history - the results of strings of contributions by actual historical people, like Norman Einstein? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Funny you say that as I believe that “Jesus” was a guy who was brilliant at illusions and that. I watched Dynamo’s tv show and he replicated many of the biggest hits - walking on water, making fish appear, turned juice to water among others.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
It's not a huge leap of faith - throw a ball in the air and it will come back down, try to figure out why and you'll eventually get to the answer : gravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
When I say someone invented two, I think you know what I mean. For a start humans at one point wouldn't have evolved sufficiently to count, then someone would have figured it out and then, to communicate it and use it they'd need to come up with (or invent) a way of explaining it. That would have evolved to where we are now where people understand what is meant when someone says "two".
It happens, apparently an Islamic Persian invented "zero",,,,Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
The 3 major monotheistic religions all believe in the same God. Allah, Yahweh and God are generally accepted to be the same being.Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
And it's a pretty major part of Christian belief that God did show himself through Jesus. From the Catholic version of the Nicene Creed:
'I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ......begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father....'
Or the Anglican:
'Being of one substance with the Father'
The Lutheran Churches:
'Very God of very God......of one substance with the Father'.
I don’t get why this has descended into religion. Wrong board surely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
OK but explain all the other Gods either still worshipped or were worshipped by people like Romans, Norse, Greeks, Egyptians etc, or explain the Pagans and aboriginal people of Australia who don't believe in a god but believe in a Mother Earth type spirit, or the people of the rainforests throughout the world who believe in spirits.
In answer to the original question:
Laid.
There couldn't be a more apt board than The Holy Ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouse Hibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouse Hibby
This is .net did you really thin this thread would stay on subject, it's the norm on here.
The only explanation I have is they have chose to believe in something different from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
Again it comes down to that word faith. Faith in our own beliefs; one of the many belief systems could be right or we could all be wrong and we end up as nothing more than a pile of ashes. If it's the latter then it's not an issue as I won't know anything about it.
As I said previously for me religion isn't about being right or being better than anyone else (although I would argue it has made me a better person). I respect the right of people to believe in whatever God they choose or to believe that there is no God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
I agree with you.
Who is in charge of this site?
Bunch of pricks, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by pollution
I totally get where you’re coming from, my point was purely about semantics, as the word you used doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It’s as simple as that. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Your Santa example is a good one for the purpose of this discussion (re: semantics); you respect the belief of the child by not telling them “Santa doesn’t exist”. By saying “God is imaginary”, you are saying God does not exist. That’s implicit in the definition of that specific word you used and, with that in mind, I can’t agree with the definition you’ve applied. Admittedly I don’t have a perfect definition for the context of this discussion, but the closest I can come up with is “something which can be proven not to exist”.
Anyway, my reading of what you were saying was that you hadn’t intended to say “God doesn’t exist”, so I was trying to help clarify. You’ve clarified that yourself a few times now though, so I’ll get off my semantic high horse and stop confusing matters! :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Again what I don't get is IF god created the heaven and earth and made man in his own image, why is there so many various religions and beliefs, surely there would be only one belief, IF god is real why would he allow all these other beliefs to even exist.
Or is it not just a fact that throughout the world the various indigenous people had differing view points and those turned out to be what turned into their beliefs and religions for that part of the world, we here in Britain were Pagan worshippers before the Romans, Jutes, Germanic and Vikings came here . Some days of the week take their names from these people, Saturday ( Saturn ) Thursday ( Thor ) 2 Gods from their beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Until there is conclusive proof that he exists, God cannot exist, the Bible, Koran etc are stories and fables and as such prove nothing, much like any book of fiction is just that. Who's to say Scientology isn't real, many famous celebrities follow that ad I'd go as far as to say their not stupid people. what about Hindu's who believe in gods with multiple arms, is their gods the real ones? There is no proof for any deity or god as they are all beliefs, stories or fables handed down through the age.