Here's one for the religious..

[janie48]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jPDlgq-znrY#!

 

Another one for the religious...

So I suppose religion is all all about cruelty, hate and fanaticism is it try telling that to the countless number of religious charities serving the needs of those here in the UK and all over the world.

 

And by the way I've just noticed your signature, I doubt if UKIP were ever in power they would be able to prevent tragic evil events from happening, and from what I have heard they are not short of a few radical fanatical religious nuts amongst them.

[Cavegirl]

Ok fair enough, what would you suggest would make an adequate new term to encompass the underlying principle?

 

If necessary I'd talk about the techniques and/ or principles of science. Usually though if I need to talk about these I'll refer to specifics rather than generalisations. I couldn't just write 'this experiment has conformed to the Scientific Method' because it doesn't say anything.

 

Well, for example, there are three Abrahamic religions, two share many similar beliefs about the old testament and its teaching, Christianity deviates from some of these teachings and thus when talking about people trying to prove their religion (not just Christianity) with science just looking at Christianity would miss those elements claimed by the other two Abrahamic faiths (much more if we extended it to non Abrahamic religions which this thread was also aimed at). If for example they tried to prove their religion by using evidence for capital punishment (maybe they would say, and I have heard this argument) that studies would suggest capital punishment lowered the murder rate, looking at just Christianity would be irrelevant because most Christian denominations consider those OT rules dealing with it to have been overturned with Jesus.

 

People really suck sometimes. All the interesting things in the world to investigate scientifically, why would you choose to justify capital punishment?- the mind boggles.

 

With all due respect though I'm still none the wiser as to why Christians would view the Higgs Boson as proof for God! I'm not even sure which historic sources I would start at to try to understand it.

My reference to historic sources was based upon this conversation:

 

Cavegirl:

Science didn't begin in opposition to religion

 

PaliRichard:

I don't think science and religion were ever 'together'.

 

I was trying to show you that, despite a shaky start based upon general distaste at using Greek pagan scholarship, science and religion developed together throughout Christianity and that link still exists in some circles. We know they were 'together' because science came to be full of miracles and superstition which is what the Enlightenment scientists worked to eliminate from their studies.

Modern Christian science includes aspects such as 'intelligent design'. They've had a problem however in that at the sub-atomic level some particles don't appear to behave rationally. They have no mass, yet they act as though they do. This problem was solved by the Higgs Boson particle- a 'carrier' particle that in a Higgs field (a force similar to electromagnetism) will attach itself to other particles thus giving them mass. This is why it's nicknamed the God particle- it brings order to seeming chaos.

 

Alas I'm at work so can't read the paper - I'll have a look at it at a later date.

 

I don't think (certainly the texts don't suggest - without reading the linked paper I can't assess the sources used) that Buddha would say it's ok to believe something as long as you don't follow it blindly - he was quite critical of some peoples beliefs. I think he respected peoples rights to believe what they want but not always the beliefs themselves, there are certainly suttas that show him engaged in debate with other sects saying that what they believed didn't make sense.

 

The Buddha's teaching has a very educational and intellectual thrust to it; people should not necessarily accept or cling to beliefs blindly. They should have only reasonable beliefs, and they should examine beliefs that are handed to them by their tradition or their elders and explore them and only then really come to uphold them if they seem reasonable.

 

This is from the paper I linked, which is where I got that particular understanding of Buddhism.

 

Which camp don't you fall into? I'm not sure which bit of my quote you're responding to here!

 

Ah, I was refering to my own paragraph above that part, not something you'd written.

 

Not even the idea that they were formed as a way of understanding the world around us? Do you really think political control is more likely than the idea that they were a channel to understanding life?

 

I think gods were created to serve or assist with a human need or purpose. Political means 'of, for or relating to citizens/ people' As I said, I don't think it's about control anymore, it's about the needs of the individual/ group that created the god. In Akhenaten's case it was about usurping power from the priests (a selfish motive) and in the Abrahamic Gods case it was about unifying a group in defence of themselves (more altruistic) but in both cases it was about serving people's needs. As I've also said already, deities were created as part of a mental map (an understanding of life) to serve people's needs. Does that clarify what I'm trying to say here?

 

I've never heard of this, and it doesn't really marry with what I know of how personality and the brain works - that's not me criticising you, it means I'm intrigued and would like to learn more of these cases - could you point me in the right direction please?

 

Sure. One of the best accounts I've found of a child that lacked social stimuli until the age of eleven isn't a feral child, but relates to a deaf child that was never taught sign language. In 'Seeing Voices' Oliver Sacks writes:

 

He clearly had an anguished sense of something missing, a sense of his own crippledness and deficit...He could not even grasp the idea of a question much less formulate an answer. He lacked a clear sense of the past of a day ago as distinct from a year ago. There was a strange lack of historical sense, a feeling of a life that lacked autobiographical and historical dimension, a feeling of a life that only existed in the moment, in the present. He had no problem with perceptual categorisation or generalisation, but he could not, it seemed, go much beyond this, hold abstract ideas in mind, reflect, play, plan.

 

You can also look at the really tragic case of 'Genie' who was subjected to severe abuse until she was 13 and never learned to speak properly:

 

http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/genie.htm

 

There are cases of feral children living in the wild, but take them with a pinch of salt because they often turn out to be hoaxes:

 

http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/

 

A child with language could be rehabilitated I think, but a child lost before they learn language would have no chance of learning to socialise with humans or give an account of their history if they came back as an adult.

 

But it was pre existant in form, he didn't just say 'Here's my new God - now we all eat peas on Tuesdays instead of Thursdays', it was an adaption, which is what I've been trying to get at. I can't think of a single case where a God has just been 'made up' for political purposes. Am I right in thinking (and I fully acknowledge I may not be but this seems somehow stuck in the recess of my mind) that it was his father who first suggested (or more correctly placed the focus on) the deity and Amenhotep IV 'upgraded' (sorry) the God's status to being the only God?

 

That's not quite correct. His father used the aten symbol in association with things he most valued- a bit like a royal crest, a symbol of royal power. Akhenaten deified the symbol. Previously they'd worshipped a god of the sun, not the sun itself, now they worshipped the equivalent of the word 'sun'. It might sound strange to us but it relates to how the Egyptians depicted their gods through symbols.

 

I would really really appreciate it if you could finish off these topics with your replies now, it's been a good discussion and covered a lot but I'm struggling to keep up with so much and my real life If you can just highlight a few parts that interest you most so we can bring this back to a managable size it would be very much appreciated!!

[PaliRichard]

I would really really appreciate it if you could finish off these topics with your replies now, it's been a good discussion and covered a lot but I'm struggling to keep up with so much and my real life If you can just highlight a few parts that interest you most so we can bring this back to a managable size it would be very much appreciated!!

 

I will do my best although most of your posts interest me, that's why our conversations tend to go on and on and on and on and...

 

If necessary I'd talk about the techniques and/ or principles of science. Usually though if I need to talk about these I'll refer to specifics rather than generalisations. I couldn't just write 'this experiment has conformed to the Scientific Method' because it doesn't say anything[/Quote]

 

Which is fair enough in individual cases, but when we are talking about someone taking that method out of context to try to prove God's existence we have to keep that method at the forefront of the conversation. The 'specifics' in such cases (being given by the person trying to prove the point) are usually corrupted or selective of the evidence so ignoring the method (or being ignorant of it) can change the whole context of the evidence.

 

My guess is that you have not had many conversation with the type of people I aimed this thread at and so don't fully appreciate the lengths they go to in order to twist theories in order to suit their agendas. I think if you had you would appreciate the importance of getting that fundamental method into the conversation, as this often is enough to show the flaw in their argument (and I can provide an example of this from this very forum if you so desire).

 

People really suck sometimes. All the interesting things in the world to investigate scientifically, why would you choose to justify capital punishment?- the mind boggles[/Quote]

 

Yes, but the point is that taking Christianity as the point of reference for even the Abrahamic religions, regardless of religion as a whole, can lead to conclusions that don't necessarily mirror the reality of the belief structure.

 

My reference to historic sources was based upon this conversation......I was trying to show you that, despite a shaky start based upon general distaste at using Greek pagan scholarship, science and religion developed together throughout Christianity and that link still exists in some circles. We know they were 'together' because science came to be full of miracles and superstition which is what the Enlightenment scientists worked to eliminate from their studies[/Quote]

 

Yes I know, I thought we'd already established that was a misunderstanding on the basis that when I said I didn't think science and religion were ever together I was speaking from the perspective of post enlightenment scientists and the 'method' (sorry for using the dirty word) being independent of the belief of the scientists using it.

 

Modern Christian science includes aspects such as 'intelligent design'. They've had a problem however in that at the sub-atomic level some particles don't appear to behave rationally. They have no mass, yet they act as though they do. This problem was solved by the Higgs Boson particle- a 'carrier' particle that in a Higgs field (a force similar to electromagnetism) will attach itself to other particles thus giving them mass. This is why it's nicknamed the God particle- it brings order to seeming chaos[/Quote]

 

I think you may be confusing Christian scientists with Christian scientists - that is Christians who try to twist (or use selectively) science to justify a religious belief and Christians who happen to be scientists and are able to hold their beliefs independent of their 'day job'.

 

The first is who this thread is aimed at (as well as similar of all faiths) and the second is an example of why religion and science isn't necessarily 'together' - a Christian who also happens to be a particle physicist can employ the experiment and view the results independently of whether those results justify his faith or not.

 

This is from the paper I linked, which is where I got that particular understanding of Buddhism[/Quote]

 

I have had chance to read through the paper now. The thing that is glaringly obvious to me is that it is written in the language of interfaith relationship - in which case employing the language the author used would be in order to automatically try to find common bonds between the faiths - I think this perspective should be taken into account when reading the whole paper - and especially when the author is talking about the relationship the Buddha had with other sects.

 

Also this part stood out to me regarding your claim that Buddhism was religiously pluralist

Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam are the three most overtly universalistic religions, as they are not nation-specific. They haw had the history of being able to unify radically different tribes with radically different cultures. People have found a kind of common sense of identity and, therefore, a sense of pluralism about their cultural or racial or gender differences within the concept of common identity as following the same religion. They have shown that religion can provide meaning where national or racial or gender identity does not reach. Religious identity has created a sense of commonality, so that pluralism about the other elements can take place. Where we have to face realistically the fact that religions have failed is in that they have not managed to find a broader sense of identity than themselves -- truly spiritual identity, so as to really identify with members of other religions in the same sort of pluralistic way The pluralism that we know today is too much, I fear, in the terms that Professor Greenberg very aptly put, a kind of false relativism.That is to say, it is based on the sense of identity of living in a secular world, the secular society of America, or the even more awful secularism of the anti-religious Marxist countries that are now unraveling. This is still on the law books in China, where it is still illegal to propagate religion or to practice or espouse your religion openly. Russia has changed at last, although I do not know whether they have changed all the statutes yet. In other words, the sense of pluralism that has arisen in America was a kind of negative pluralism or merely a relativism, because the larger thing that we were encountering, religious people over the last centuries, was nihilism or materialism, the idea that nobody knows anything about what ultimately is, but we scientists are going to find out. There is no spirit, and, in that light, we can tolerate each other's various forms of fun and homey rituals that people use to build up a sense of community, but these things really have no claim on reality since reality is known only by science, you see[/Quote]

 

I'll leave that with you for reflection I think.

 

I think gods were created to serve or assist with a human need or purpose. Political means 'of, for or relating to citizens/ people' As I said, I don't think it's about control anymore, it's about the needs of the individual/ group that created the god. In Akhenaten's case it was about usurping power from the priests (a selfish motive) and in the Abrahamic Gods case it was about unifying a group in defence of themselves (more altruistic) but in both cases it was about serving people's needs. As I've also said already, deities were created as part of a mental map (an understanding of life) to serve people's needs. Does that clarify what I'm trying to say here?[/Quote]

 

Maybe I misunderstood you, because I took it that you were saying Gods were created for purely political purposes, this doesn't seem to be the case in light of your last statement so I apologise for that misunderstanding.

 

Sure. One of the best accounts I've found of a child that lacked social stimuli until the age of eleven isn't a feral child, but relates to a deaf child that was never taught sign language. In 'Seeing Voices' Oliver Sacks writes.....A child with language could be rehabilitated I think, but a child lost before they learn language would have no chance of learning to socialise with humans or give an account of their history if they came back as an adult[/Quote]

 

Thanks for that, I will look into this further in my own time.

 

That's not quite correct. His father used the aten symbol in association with things he most valued- a bit like a royal crest, a symbol of royal power. Akhenaten deified the symbol. Previously they'd worshipped a god of the sun, not the sun itself, now they worshipped the equivalent of the word 'sun'. It might sound strange to us but it relates to how the Egyptians depicted their gods through symbols[/Quote]

 

Ah ok, as I said, I didn't really know, it was stuck somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I'm not sure where I heard/read it.

 

I didn't do a very good job at keeping it short did I sorry

[Cavegirl]

I will do my best although most of your posts interest me, that's why our conversations tend to go on and on and on and on and...

 

I didn't do a very good job at keeping it short did I sorry

 

And I have a feeling, even in an attempt to synthesize our points this is going to become a behemoth

 

I'd like to share with you my latest thoughts on what I think religion is, why despite being an atheist I think it's very important and what its purpose might be.

 

I think that religious belief may have a genetic basis, a spandrel gene, only present in some, that can be triggered by the experiences of a person during their lifetime. This seems to account for why there's a huge spectrum of belief experiences- from atheism to moderates to fundamentalism, from those who come to religion late in life to those who rebel against religion when they enter adulthood. I think it manifests itself in a similar way to the other spandrel genes I've mentioned- art, music, poetry, literature.

 

In each case, I think, they're reality that has been exaggerated (to a greater or lesser extent) in such a way that they manifest as beauty or grotesquery in the human psyche. For example, from Palaeolithic Venus figurines to Henry Moore's sculptures we see human figures depicted in a recognisable but unrealistic manner. To create something that depicts reality is mundane and boring to us, to create something not just imaginative, but something that speaks of a human quality, makes it 'sacred', 'supernatural', imbues it with value and meaning and that can still be accessed and appreciated even hundreds or thousands of years later. The great masterpieces tend to do this in abundance. You don't have to be a great artist to appreciate it, you don't even need to think much about art, it could be completely peripheral to you, yet still you can appreciate it.

 

I think you see where I'm coming from, religion and art appeal to humans because they share this 'supernatural, larger than life' construct. So why do we treat them differently? Why can atheists appreciate the supernatural in art or music, even if they're not great artists or musicians, but not in religion? Why can we appreciate da Vinci or Beethoven but rail against Christ and Mohammed? The people who invented the gods that have really taken off in our history were the equivalent of Mozart or Michaelangelo yet they're rarely even considered in our culture. Why?

 

Largely, I think because religion did what it was never meant to do- it became an authority dictating a way of life rather than remaining a meaningful part of the human experience. Now the tide has turned too far the other way. Nihilism doesn't just affect post-Marxist countries, as your quoted passage suggests, it affects all post-Feudalist, post-religious societies. It's the very reason why the people you set up this debate for are lashing out in this seemingly irrational manner, they're desperately trying to fit religion back into a scientific world and they will find no greater empathisers I suspect than with the atheists of the Medieval period. The nihilistic scepticism that has invaded our society is cutting them off from their innate means of expression- they're doing the only rational thing possible in trying to make sense of it.

 

This is why I'm not a pluralist when it comes to the issue of the creation of gods. There are numerous ideas out there - created out of insanity (Freud), created out of irrationality (Dawkins), created to control people (Marx), not created at all (religion)- but I don't agree with any of them. Is it irrational or insane to express and understand yourself through art or music? I don't think so. They only later are used to control people as I think we've agreed and my archaeological experience doesn't tally with the notion that humanised deities were present prior to the Bronze Age so I'm left with the understanding that they were created to serve human needs as part of human expression.

 

Interfaith and non-faith dialogue could be opened up I think, if religion were seen more widely in this context. (From what you've said I think you personally do, to a large extent, see it in this context). Each religion is part of a bigger worldwide picture just as surrealism or impressionism contributes to wider artistic endeavour, but also changes the nature of that endeavour thus providing inspiration for the next generation- how do you determine, as an observer, which of these schools is greater than the other? You can't I don't think. Atheists could learn to appreciate the great masterpieces of global religion and religious people could be taken seriously again, as having a perspective of value and merit to contribute to society. What could, perhaps should, happen and what will happen are of course two very separate things.

 

What do you think? Have I lost the plot here or might I be onto something? I'm sure your reply will give me lots more to think about

[PaliRichard]

I think that religious belief may have a genetic basis, a spandrel gene, only present in some, that can be triggered by the experiences of a person during their lifetime. This seems to account for why there's a huge spectrum of belief experiences- from atheism to moderates to fundamentalism, from those who come to religion late in life to those who rebel against religion when they enter adulthood. I think it manifests itself in a similar way to the other spandrel genes I've mentioned- art, music, poetry, literature[/Quote]

 

This is an interesting concept. I'm not sure I agree with us having a gene for religion. If you were to take a look at my family I am the only one out of nine cousins who is religious. Only one of my blood aunts/uncles is even remotely religious and none of my grandparents were.

 

Having said that I have changed my mind regarding genes over the years, I used to be very much a 'nuture' man, thinking our environment and our experiences shaped who we are, much more recently however, only since the death of my father, and only with the subtle awareness that concentrated meditation brings (without this I would still be a nuture man - I would have simply missed the subtleties) I have noticed far more inherited traits, very subtle inherited traits, that I was previously unaware of. I am now much more inclined to think 'nature' has a much more important role to play in shaping who we are than I would have previously accepted.

 

How much that balance between nature/nuture has shaped me I can't tell.

 

In each case, I think, they're reality that has been exaggerated (to a greater or lesser extent) in such a way that they manifest as beauty or grotesquery in the human psyche. For example, from Palaeolithic Venus figurines to Henry Moore's sculptures we see human figures depicted in a recognisable but unrealistic manner. To create something that depicts reality is mundane and boring to us, to create something not just imaginative, but something that speaks of a human quality, makes it 'sacred', 'supernatural', imbues it with value and meaning and that can still be accessed and appreciated even hundreds or thousands of years later. The great masterpieces tend to do this in abundance. You don't have to be a great artist to appreciate it, you don't even need to think much about art, it could be completely peripheral to you, yet still you can appreciate it[/Quote]

 

I think it depends what you mean by 'religious' - itself a very difficult question, I think on the whole, for the blanket term you may be right - however (sorry for sticking a 'but' in) I think those who are truly aware of what being religious actually means, those that touch that 'spirit' which is all too often brushed over by those waving the religious flag that they realise the mundane is exactly what religion is all about. I think (to make this very simple I'll use Theistic terminology, and I may be dumbing it down a bit so I apologise) those that truly love God recognise him in his creation - the sacred and supernatural are to be found in the everyday.

 

It is my opinion that those who emphasise the supernatural or miraculous aspect of religion have probably never really been touched by it.

 

I think you see where I'm coming from, religion and art appeal to humans because they share this 'supernatural, larger than life' construct. So why do we treat them differently? Why can atheists appreciate the supernatural in art or music, even if they're not great artists or musicians, but not in religion? Why can we appreciate da Vinci or Beethoven but rail against Christ and Mohammed? The people who invented the gods that have really taken off in our history were the equivalent of Mozart or Michaelangelo yet they're rarely even considered in our culture. Why?[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure I can answer that, as an attempt I would say that I think they are appreciated (or the work they have inspired) is appreciated by our culture - but the people themselves are just a little bit out of reach to understand. Speaking for myself it has taken me a long time to appreciate the Buddha as a human being beyond the teachings - I look at the Buddha everyday (not literally) and it has taken me a long time - for those who don't hold him in such high regard I can understand their lack of appreciation.

 

Or to put at another way, when I see Jesus or Mohammad I appreciate their teachings, but I don't 'know' them like I know the Buddha - maybe it's just a little bit too much effort to make that commitment when, let's be honest, most people don't really care.

 

Largely, I think because religion did what it was never meant to do- it became an authority dictating a way of life rather than remaining a meaningful part of the human experience. Now the tide has turned too far the other way. Nihilism doesn't just affect post-Marxist countries, as your quoted passage suggests, it affects all post-Feudalist, post-religious societies. It's the very reason why the people you set up this debate for are lashing out in this seemingly irrational manner, they're desperately trying to fit religion back into a scientific world and they will find no greater empathisers I suspect than with the atheists of the Medieval period. The nihilistic scepticism that has invaded our society is cutting them off from their innate means of expression- they're doing the only rational thing possible in trying to make sense of it[/Quote]

 

Maybe, it is a good point and one I shall take away to consider.

 

This is why I'm not a pluralist when it comes to the issue of the creation of gods. There are numerous ideas out there - created out of insanity (Freud), created out of irrationality (Dawkins), created to control people (Marx), not created at all (religion)- but I don't agree with any of them. Is it irrational or insane to express and understand yourself through art or music? I don't think so. They only later are used to control people as I think we've agreed and my archaeological experience doesn't tally with the notion that humanised deities were present prior to the Bronze Age so I'm left with the understanding that they were created to serve human needs as part of human expression[/Quote]

 

I would agree with that.

 

Interfaith and non-faith dialogue could be opened up I think, if religion were seen more widely in this context. (From what you've said I think you personally do, to a large extent, see it in this context). Each religion is part of a bigger worldwide picture just as surrealism or impressionism contributes to wider artistic endeavour, but also changes the nature of that endeavour thus providing inspiration for the next generation- how do you determine, as an observer, which of these schools is greater than the other? You can't I don't think[/Quote]

 

Interfaith dialogue is difficult (though rewarding when it works) - for reasons too complex to go into here. But I think it is the responsibility of each religious person to acknowledge there are other faiths that have as much right as we do to be here, and acknowledge that although they individually hold the claim to the 'truth' that the claims of other people are equally as valid, I see no reason whatsoever why this should undermine your own faith (and in fact fear of other faiths speaks volumes to me about the faith, or lack of, that the individual has). As an observer I think if you were to make the claim that one was greater than the other you should examine your understanding of the 'other'.

 

Atheists could learn to appreciate the great masterpieces of global religion and religious people could be taken seriously again, as having a perspective of value and merit to contribute to society. What could, perhaps should, happen and what will happen are of course two very separate things[/Quote]

 

I think maybe you are leaning on too heavy an intellectual bias here. Most atheists don't give a flying raccoon (or even a second thought) about religion. I think of those that do think about it the majority dislike it because of what it represents. I foresee some religions (like Buddhism and Taoism) continuing to be accepted (if grudgingly by some) by atheist religious thinkers as having a philosophic value and the other (mainly Theistic) ones continuing, maybe increasingly so, to be ridiculed by them. This to my mind is unfair to those Theistic religions, and tells me that the said thinkers are looking into them with very shallow goggles on, and missing the 'meat' of all of them, those they are in favour of and those they dislike.

 

What do you think? Have I lost the plot here or might I be onto something? I'm sure your reply will give me lots more to think about

 

Definately not lost the plot but in my opinion your thinking could be refined. I think that thing we talked about may have coloured slightly what you understand of the deeper dimensions of religious thought - or maybe I'm just being prejudice! That's for you to decide

[Ryedo40]

I think that religious belief may have a genetic basis, a spandrel gene, only present in some, that can be triggered by the experiences of a person during their lifetime.

 

If by spandrel gene you mean by-product, then maybe yes: superstition/magical/causal thinking, trust of authority during childhood, etc are a result of our genetics. But I don't think there is a gene for religion. Religion, like many other beliefs, are just by-products of our ignorance, the need to understand, to feel safe and be in control. I think that is where many beliefs, not just religious, have their roots.

 

Largely, I think because religion did what it was never meant to do- it became an authority dictating a way of life rather than remaining a meaningful part of the human experience.

 

I don't agree. Religions did exactly what people had designed them to do: to give them a sense of control and understanding. To make them feel good and safe.

 

The more meaningful parts(the feel good parts) would have probably developed in tandem - or would have been secondary.

 

I think you see where I'm coming from, religion and art appeal to humans because they share this 'supernatural, larger than life' construct.

 

Superheroes, superpowers, the supernatural, good aliens, bad aliens, bad ghosts, good ghosts, you name it: they appeal to us - atheist and theist - because what we can't physically do fuels our imaginations and needs. Likewise, what we don't understand or know, fuels our imaginations, fears and needs.

 

It always boils down to fear, the need to feel good and our inability and need to control.

 

Why can atheists appreciate the supernatural in art or music

There is no actual supernatural in art or music, but we can appreciate the emotions art and music invoke.

 

but not in religion? Why can we appreciate da Vinci or Beethoven but rail against Christ and Mohammed?

 

I can appreciate the mythology/fiction - some of the stories or the meaning behind them - but I don't view them as real events. When I rail against them, it's because of those pushing them as real events - and them trying to dictate (control) how we all should think and live our lives.

[billlaunty]

scientists don't want to prove there is a creator!! for instance how old is mankind how long

has men and women been on the earth, history barely goes back 6000 years that's no use

to a scientist he only wants to deal in millions of years. where is the proof of mankind being on earth longer than 6000 years if that would be true he took a long time to invent the old byke which only came into existence late 1800s was it ?

[RootsBooster]

scientists don't want to prove there is a creator!! for instance how old is mankind how long

has men and women been on the earth, history barely goes back 6000 years that's no use

to a scientist he only wants to deal in millions of years. where is the proof of mankind being on earth longer than 6000 years if that would be true he took a long time to invent the old byke which only came into existence late 1800s was it ?

 

Seems legit

[SnailyBoy]

scientists don't want to prove there is a creator!! for instance how old is mankind how long

has men and women been on the earth, history barely goes back 6000 years that's no use

to a scientist he only wants to deal in millions of years. where is the proof of mankind being on earth longer than 6000 years if that would be true he took a long time to invent the old byke which only came into existence late 1800s was it ?

 

Start by reading a few books, then come back to join in. You're way behind at the moment.

[billlaunty]

Hi smiley what book or books would you like me to read

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2013 at 21:06 ----------

 

sorry snaily still got it wrong perhaps sorry