Not only that a lot of it is doctrine interpretation s of the religious writings of that faith.

Theories that can be backed by scientific evidence. Religion is backed up by the blind faith of idiots.

The only evidence for the Big Bang is that it is possible yet statistically unlikely. It's actually not dissimilar. Both needs a bit of blind faith.

Your entire point seemed to be about religious people being idiots and you being far superior. You actually felt that your blind faith was so superior that theirs should be abolished. I'm not sure you understand the concept faith I guess is my point. Either that, or you've put far too much trust in this theory, which by your logic would surely make you just as stupid as the people you're insulting.

Female modesty for instance. It's all closely linked and instilled from birth. That way it ensures least resistance. Just a sexist ploy to control women and be top dog. Primitive rubbish in my opinion.

There are cultural norms and there are religious norms, They are separate two people of two differing faiths can exhibit the same cultural norms.

Faith = wishful thinking. Pluses and minuses - whilst it provides comfort for many it also creates the abuse of many. For me that abuse outweighs its comfort value.

What I personally object to is when people try to present religion as fact - it isn't and never will be.

Patriarchal socialisation.

Pretty much this.

This is evidence taught in GCSE for Big Bang, link provided for anyone interested. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...ginsrev2.shtml The Nasa site also has study information for evidence of Big Bang.

I'd also recommend The God Delusion as a great, thought provoking read.

This is also the crux of religion though; the idea that if we don't have an explanation for something, we must invent one. That one of the already proposed solutions must be the correct one. Which is actually highly unlikely. Where does this idea come from that if someone isn't religious, or is actively anti-religious, they automatically "must believe in the big bang theory"?

The only reasonable standpoint, as far as I see it, is that we simply have to accept that we do not know or understand the origins of space and time. They are beyond us. We just don't know. But then people take that to mean, "and so a religion could be right!" which is simply ludicrous. It is essentially the idea that, out of infinite possibility, in an infinite and unknowable universe, some humans in the last few thousand years managed to straight up guess the truth, and beyond all logic, the truth is a collection of human-centric concepts? Bizarre.

And the bit in bold will always be the conclusion, wouldn't it. Glenn's whole 'people who don't agree with my -also- statistically unlikely theory are all stupid' little gig he's got going on there is ridiculous and ego-driven
I'd say the same to a devout religious nut that dismisses all other theories
You don't know your theory has any value to it at all, until and unless you do - stop being a dick
You have faith in your theory, that's cute. Stop trying to push it on others. Gather all the information in the world if you must, the conclusion will always be inconclusive.

The fact that no theory can be outright proven does not make all theories equal, though. Where's the logic in that? Where does it end? If you believe that then you can't deny ANY theory. If I have a theory that Katie Hopkins took a day off from The Sun and created the universe... Is that as equally open to being considered a legitimate possibility?

Of course it isnt - it doesn't make sense, it is illogical, the likelihood of it being correct is SO unimaginably small that it can be confidently declared to be straight up false.

The point is that there are near infinite possible theories about space, time and life and it's extremely unlikely that any human theory is entirely correct. Purely because it's unlikely that we even have a concept of the science behind it yet (or maybe, ever). However that doesn't mean that the likelihood of a singularity and the big bang isn't significantly MORE likely than any religious theory. Vague spirituality and belief in some form of higher life form or intelligent creation is perfectly possible. It's not even unlikely, I would say. It's pretty much 50/50 as to whether the universe is borne of deliberate design or simply of order randomly emerging from chaos over infinite time. However, the "human gods" of organised religion, and every single word of every religious text ever written, can only be concluded to be SO unlikely as to be considered effectively false. As false at the Katie Hopkins theory, or the theory that the planet is simply a condensed hairball coughed up by a huge intergalactic space cat. "God of some sort"? Possibly. Organised religion? Nonsense and fairytales.

But some theories are more likely than others to each person. No theory will be proven. Calling people an idiot etc because you personally believe your theory is better than theirs, would make you a dick. It doesn't matter what your theory is, it works every which way.

Creation of the planet etc could be proven one day. Religion could not. Why do you feel the need to get so personal about it. That is pretty dickish in my opinion. Pot and kettle kind of mentality.

Your love of circles is excessive
A street preacher is a dick.. a person who preys on the vulnerable to convert to their religion? Dick. A person insulting everybody who doesn't think their way, they're a dick too. Me being a dick for calling them out? If you like luv.

Same ole, same ole. As you and me and others are hardly innocent of said crime, singling out one poster's comments is nonsence. He certainly isn't a serial offender - unlike some.

I'm not sure I understand, he's allowed to insult forum members and millions of others because he isn't a serial offender? Or I'm not allowed to call him out on it because I am apparently?
What a weird rule you just made up

Formal logic isn't subjective... There is no "depends on the person" there. Rigid faith is fundamentally, objectively, illogical in several ways... No matter which faith that happens to be.

What is largely subjective, like I said, is the basic choice - random order from chaos ("1000 monkeys" theorem) or intelligent design of unknown nature (a higher entity that could be simplified as "a god"). The idea that any human, anywhere, ever, has stumbled upon anything more than that which even vaguely resembles fact is (again) so unlikely that it can be discarded as false, even when it can't be logically disproven (which certain aspects of organised religion certainly can).

I wouldn't assume anyone to be "stupid" as there are all sorts of reasons that people develop the cognitive dissonance required to follow an organised religion - the most common are indoctrination and trauma (especially loss) - neither of which have anything to do with intelligence.

That's quite naive to think. Without religion, yes it couldn't be used by people to manipulate it's meaning or cause for their own power and gain. But those people will simply find something else to twist to their own ends. Anyone who thinks any of these religions supports or condones these extremists who use religion as an excuse for their actions are wrong.

Just like every other organisation or position of power it's abused by evil people.

The problem isn't religion itself. It's greedy humans.

Its true that most Muslims hate Jews, just as most Jews hate Muslims but that's all about Israel and Palestine.

Main stream Muslims certainly don't hate Christians. Jesus is mentioned 25 times in the Quran. The story of Saul and Gideon in our Bible is repeated in the Quran and so is Adam and Eve, Noah and the Arc, the story of Moses and Mary and Joseph. Muslim scholars are expected to read the Bible.

The idea that a higher being created the universe is ludicrous when there's been so much progress on creation of planets and systems etc.
The fairytales in the bible, like Jesus making a meal out of pittance to feed 5000 people, Jesus being crucified and subsequently killed then magically coming back to life... fairytales. It's not physically possible for any of that to happen. Yet it's still taken as fact by idiots. I call them idiots because that's what they are. It's the suspension of belief that these people follow. The suspension of belief that is pushed onto innocent children at such a young age, polluting their easily led brains with nonsense. Not to mention how poisonous some idiots are to homosexual people. It's sickening. Even more so when you think it's based on a pile of absolute bollocks.

The best explanation I've heard is that the stories are all metaphors and never intended to be taken literally the resurrection could be simply people remembering his teachings and therefore he is 'reborn', If people remember you are you ever truly dead?

Not that I do religion... :idc:

calm down Glenn and stop stressing, your frustration that some people choose to have faith screams in your posts. And breathe :laugh:

I believe a lot of the bible is metaphorical

I agree with this, our priest at Christmas touched on this as well, that 25th Dec is just a symbolic date etc..he is an incredibly intelligent man, I should go more often as he gives very thought provoking sermons, I don't know why non religious folk are so desperate to prove this and that, some people believe in ghosts, live and let live for goodness sake