Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@gazlan wrote:
Whatever your opinion is of Icke, his research as far as the ` reptilians ` are concerned, it cannot be denied that from ancient times to the prersent, the reptile/serpant has been prominant in most religions and country`s….Billions believe in ` a creator `that never shows its presence, yet people claim Icke to be some mad man for daring to speak of alien interference in human genes…… take the tadpole for instance, it has the obvious capabilities of metamorphis….. so the shift in appearance is a possibility.
Shut up about fcking Icke. He’s a fcking bampot. :roll:
I respect your opinion Pete. Im interested in it, but I feel we’d be 400 years more advanced if It wasnt for religion. God knows where we would be just now. I think science took us to the moon, and gave us PC’S and the internet and mobile phones etc etc etc. How many years did we squander in the the dark ages? Science might have made some mistkaes, but it’s always evolving, and always asking questions, which I dont feel religion ever does or will ever do.
@pete wrote:
I think the same applies to a person making the evolution claim or big bang claim… they have no proof of either as they have no proof of God. There is evolution but from a virus (lets say) to every plant animal fungi and bacteria on the planet ? Maybe the truth is a mix of the two who knows, certainly not David Icke
Im surprised you would say that Pete given that you’re very well versed in Science.
@pete wrote:
@Bad Manners wrote:
@pete wrote:
None of this debate has proved or disproved either belief at this moment it is down to individual faith and faith can move mountains supposedly
Well one belief cannot be disproven simply because of the nature of it. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
Problem is your making the claims yet not proving anything, I’m claiming nothing
I wasnt talking about you and me Pete. I was saying that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim(religous person). I know you’re agnostic so I dont think you’d be making the claims.
Pike’s quote from Epicurus is a good one. To expand on it does the world make infinitely more sense with or without a God? Do natural disasters, people and children dying from cancer, starvation and genocide make more sense with a God or without one. To my mind if you take out a God the randomness, and pure luck of everything that happens to us finally makes total sense because it is simply pure randomness and pure luck. We are simply on our own.
@pete wrote:
None of this debate has proved or disproved either belief at this moment it is down to individual faith and faith can move mountains supposedly
Well one belief cannot be disproven simply because of the nature of it. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
@pete wrote:
I could come up with loads i expect which would still not PROVE either belief
Dunno how else I could prove it Pete. I quoted the guy actually saying he was an athiest word for word, saying that religion is for the weak minded, and saying that he wasnt a great fan of the Bible.
I really dont think he would even fit as a deist, but some of his quotes do seem to be contradictory.@pete wrote:
Ah well that proves it beyond doubt eh ?
I would have thought so. :wink: Unless you can come with another quote?
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
:wink:
@pete wrote:
Combining two things that Einstein didnt combine, thats a little presumptious of the author of that article isn’t it. And the salient word is believed. There is no proof either way
Whether they are combined or not Pete. It still seems pretty clear what he was saying. Here’s another quote from Einstein’s last latter which certainly seems a bit clearer.
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
