Dating a Muslim girlfriend

[sundaymorningstaple]

I believe religions were/are created by people, not by Dogs. Therefore, how could it be bastardized if it is, in fact, their creation?

[JR8]

Word.

Vaucluse seems to suggest there is some divine purity in a religions birth, that humans then bastardise. No, it's a crock from square one.

[Vaucluse]

I believe religions were/are created by people, not by Dogs. Therefore, how could it be bastardized if it is, in fact, their creation?

As you correctly said: 'I believe'.

Word.

Vaucluse seems to suggest there is some divine purity in a religions birth, that humans then bastardise. No, it's a crock from square one.

I'm far from being a religious nut, but as we always ask religions to prove their existence . . . you seem to be quite certain of your point of view - can you prove it?

I am neither in a position to prove nor disprove anything much, let alone something as complex as religion . . . I'm glad some here can!

[JR8]

The scientific method does not allow one to prove that something does not exist.

[Vaucluse]

The scientific method does not allow one to prove that something does not exist.

So, given your propensity to go all scientific . . . it is enough to state that something doesn't exist?

Hardly scientific, is it?

Ok, let's assume that religion is a man-made phenomenon . . . both major religions abhor violence (let's use the new testament for the Christians here) when not directly attacked. The basic principles, call them laws if you wish, are quite good in nature.

How people use, or mis-use, these principles (laws, tenets, commandments etc...) is the issue here, not whether or not there is a divinity behind these beliefs

[JR8]

The scientific method does not allow one to prove that something does not exist.

So, given your propensity to go all scientific . . . it is enough to state that something doesn't exist?

Hardly scientific, is it?

Lol. I think it is a not unreasonable starting point. Given there is not a scintilla of proof that it does exist.My comment was more regarding proving there is no god. As that is no more possible than proving that 9/11 was not an inside job, and say proving that Princess Diana was not killed in a plot hatched by the Duke of Edinburgh

Ok, let's assume that religion is a man-made phenomenon . . .

The alternative being?


both major religions abhor violence (let's use the new testament for the Christians here) when not directly attacked. The basic principles, call them laws if you wish, are quite good in nature.

I follow your drift, but I think there is quite a bit of evil in all holy books. You know all this 'smiting him down', and 'beating your wife lightly' etc.


How people use, or mis-use, these principles (laws, tenets, commandments etc...) is the issue here, not whether or not there is a divinity behind these beliefs


Ok. well I have to say religion just leaves me cold, so I'm not into starting a big discussion. Apologies if you felt I trod on your toes, it was a late night last night.

[x9200]

The scientific method does not allow one to prove that something does not exist.

Oh, it does. I.e. you can prove pretty easily that there is no sine > 1.

[JR8]

I don't consider maths a science

Anyway trigonometry is entirely man-made, hence by definition all of it's base parameters are known.

It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?

[x9200]

It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?

Good example but I believe you can not prove this that easily Ok, I will shut up now.

[JR8]

It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?

Good example but I believe you can not prove this that easily Ok, I will shut up now.

No I used to be into all this stuff (at uni), 'the direction of discovery', the writings of the science philosopher Carl Popper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Popper
... and the whole concept of scientists never setting out to prove something that they do not believe, and therefore any research is based upon a presumption that something is true.

Anyway don worry buddy, we cultivated a pretty damned big herb garden at uni, so they were happy but philosophically complex times

[Wind In My Hair]

It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?

Good example but I believe you can not prove this that easily Ok, I will shut up now.

If science can prove that the entire universe was contained in an atom, I'm sure it's easier to prove that 5 litres of milk can be contained in a litre carton

[JR8]

Don't bogart that ..one my friend

[x9200]

It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?

Good example but I believe you can not prove this that easily Ok, I will shut up now.

If science can prove that the entire universe was contained in an atom, I'm sure it's easier to prove that 5 litres of milk can be contained in a litre carton

The problem is, science if dealing with external environment (so world, universe etc) can not prove anything. It can only make something less or more probable.* There is never a guaranty that what we perceive or record using the instruments is truthful. I guess it goes along the line of Karl Popper mentioned by JR8. Science is only precise when describing models it created so who knows what is actually in this one liter container?

*) with further limitation to its particular time-space piece of "reality".

[JR8]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... g-her.html

Charming bunch of people!

[JR8]

No no fishy me ol' China, it is more complicated than that!