|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 26, 2009 01:41 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
1) Does science make any claims or statements about religion or its valiity? Yes, one: it's not scienticfic.
2) Does science even want to make claims or statements about religion? No,
3) Does science claim to make statements about absolute truths? No.
4) Can science prove anything in an absolute way? No.
5) Does science want that? No.
How often does it have to be said:
Science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
In mathematics it has been proven that in any complex anough system there will be things that simply CANNOT be proven.
What does that mean? It means, that even in mathematics there are things that are a question of BELIEF since prove is impossible.
Why should that be different in the universe? It make sense to hypothesize that not everything can be proven no matter what. Science will continue to find things but as 1/n will never reach 0 no matter how high n gets, so will science not find and prove 100%.
How come that lots of scientists are religious?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 26, 2009 11:39 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:42, 26 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
I did not want to wrote down the theory of big bang. It is a theory and still the best we got explaned by the scientific method - one day you will learn what this is (when you are older).
You sound like a typical religious person 
What do you mean by "theory"? You mean how the Universe today came to be, what predictions follow from that theory? No, we were talking about BEFORE the Big Bang. How can you possibly predict anything? It's COMPLETELY outside the point of science. It won't even try -- and thank goodness for that. We don't need it turned into a religion by those like you. If you want that, go into philosophy. Or religion. Either way, not science.
Quote:
Science explain the nature and universe. Using the scientific method. The best people got. Science have some theories about big bangs are going in loops, but this can never been proved.
Then it's not science. And it's "silly claim" as well, what you said. Science is NOT about explanations, it's about PREDICTIONS. I suspect you have no idea what the scientific method is about, or what theories actually are. Do you make a difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Well you don't seem like it. Hypothesis falls under the belief category.
Theory is used to predict. No matter how far-fetched it sounds, if it predicts things, it's a theory. Enlighten me how does that apply to "the moment BEFORE the Big Bang" and you will earn some kind of award from me (not sure what ). Right now, you look like a typical religious scientist who degrades science to that level as well, will you also hold onto your favorite theories. What if someone disproves tomorrow all current models we use? Will you abandon them in an instant? A good scientist should.
Quote:
No, science is not a religion it is a way to explain the nature and universe.
Funny claim. Sorry to inform you, but for religious people, religion is used to 'explain' it as well, or what God does, etc... Heck some even turn to philosophy for that. Maybe your religious science is concerned with that. Real science is concerned with predictions, not with idealistic explanations that serve no purpose in prediction. That falls to philosophy.
You can think of an atom any way you want, it's also just an illusion, a model, because science is not concerned at all with "how an atom looks like in 'reality'" (that would fall into a discussion itself) but rather what kind of data you can predict with your model.
Make the distinction.
Quote:
tsk tsk. when you just believe then it is true, I hear you say. Then Santa Claus is also the truth. Evidence behind God and Santa is not so different. Nice we have the scientific way.
Thanks for the info! [/sarcasm]
In all seriousness, what the HELL are you babbling about? I said that science is NOT concerned with truth as you say. I didn't say that religion IS Truth, that's your own stupid ignorant assumption. However I did say it's a candidate, though to different people, even infinitesmall chances -- however, that's infinitely better than 0. It's what I said.
But my only point was that your idea of science is twisted into fanaticism. Science is not about Truth. Instead of bringing Santa Claus into the discussion, I dare you to refute this argument.
You know, reducing the discussion to something ridiculous to fallaciously prove some point is really old and doesn't work here.
And like JJ said, science and religion has nothing to do with each other. Well, real science at least, causing from your posts, I get a totally different definition of science.
Quote:
Of course it is believing - and absolute nothing else. Like all other relgions. What make your religion better than the thousands other? - Absoute nothing - it is just believing in some old stories.
I was talking about your "science". You said "bla bla bla", and I assumed (and I still do) that you don't have any idea about how really the Big Bang deals with all problems and criteria, since the real theory doesn't deal with what was "before" it would be just guessing, and you seem to say it does (that's where it all started).
I conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. Thus I conclude that whatever you say, including the "bla bla bla", is belief in the real scientists and you twist their meanings somehow and apply their theories to "before" the Big Bang.
Quote:
To bad you crashed - science can be hard to understand - maybe when you are older.
My AI knows about real science. It doesn't know about logical fallacies though. It goes in an infinite loop and it crashes
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
rubycus
Known Hero
-student of the mind-
|
|
posted April 26, 2009 11:45 PM |
|
|
of course everyone ignored my post...  
____________
A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 26, 2009 11:56 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:57, 26 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
In mathematics it has been proven that in any complex anough system there will be things that simply CANNOT be proven.
What does that mean? It means, that even in mathematics there are things that are a question of BELIEF since prove is impossible.
By the way JJ, that's called an axiom (or axioms) in math
And while I think math is even more pure than the natural sciences, I count it as a logical language rather than a science, since it doesn't even have theories in the scientific sense (with experiments).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
MysteriousMox
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 12:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
*Sigh*
1) Does science make any claims or statements about religion or its valiity? Yes, one: it's not scienticfic.
2) Does science even want to make claims or statements about religion? No,
3) Does science claim to make statements about absolute truths? No.
4) Can science prove anything in an absolute way? No.
5) Does science want that? No.
How often does it have to be said:
Science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
In mathematics it has been proven that in any complex anough system there will be things that simply CANNOT be proven.
What does that mean? It means, that even in mathematics there are things that are a question of BELIEF since prove is impossible.
Why should that be different in the universe? It make sense to hypothesize that not everything can be proven no matter what. Science will continue to find things but as 1/n will never reach 0 no matter how high n gets, so will science not find and prove 100%.
How come that lots of scientists are religious?
I do agree with the above.
But scientists are one of the groups where there are fewest religious.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 12:22 AM |
|
|
So wait are we here to measure whose is bigger or discuss the existence of divine entities?
Never mind, silly question. I know the answer already.
Mine. ^^
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
MysteriousMox
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 12:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I did not want to wrote down the theory of big bang. It is a theory and still the best we got explaned by the scientific method - one day you will learn what this is (when you are older).
You sound like a typical religious person
What do you mean by "theory"? You mean how the Universe today came to be, what predictions follow from that theory? No, we were talking about BEFORE the Big Bang. How can you possibly predict anything? It's COMPLETELY outside the point of science. It won't even try -- and thank goodness for that. We don't need it turned into a religion by those like you. If you want that, go into philosophy. Or religion. Either way, not science.
Quote:
Science explain the nature and universe. Using the scientific method. The best people got. Science have some theories about big bangs are going in loops, but this can never been proved.
Then it's not science. And it's "silly claim" as well, what you said. Science is NOT about explanations, it's about PREDICTIONS. I suspect you have no idea what the scientific method is about, or what theories actually are. Do you make a difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Well you don't seem like it. Hypothesis falls under the belief category.
Theory is used to predict. No matter how far-fetched it sounds, if it predicts things, it's a theory. Enlighten me how does that apply to "the moment BEFORE the Big Bang" and you will earn some kind of award from me (not sure what ). Right now, you look like a typical religious scientist who degrades science to that level as well, will you also hold onto your favorite theories. What if someone disproves tomorrow all current models we use? Will you abandon them in an instant? A good scientist should.
Quote:
No, science is not a religion it is a way to explain the nature and universe.
Funny claim. Sorry to inform you, but for religious people, religion is used to 'explain' it as well, or what God does, etc... Heck some even turn to philosophy for that. Maybe your religious science is concerned with that. Real science is concerned with predictions, not with idealistic explanations that serve no purpose in prediction. That falls to philosophy.
You can think of an atom any way you want, it's also just an illusion, a model, because science is not concerned at all with "how an atom looks like in 'reality'" (that would fall into a discussion itself) but rather what kind of data you can predict with your model.
Make the distinction.
Quote:
tsk tsk. when you just believe then it is true, I hear you say. Then Santa Claus is also the truth. Evidence behind God and Santa is not so different. Nice we have the scientific way.
Thanks for the info! [/sarcasm]
In all seriousness, what the HELL are you babbling about? I said that science is NOT concerned with truth as you say. I didn't say that religion IS Truth, that's your own stupid ignorant assumption. However I did say it's a candidate, though to different people, even infinitesmall chances -- however, that's infinitely better than 0. It's what I said.
But my only point was that your idea of science is twisted into fanaticism. Science is not about Truth. Instead of bringing Santa Claus into the discussion, I dare you to refute this argument.
You know, reducing the discussion to something ridiculous to fallaciously prove some point is really old and doesn't work here.
And like JJ said, science and religion has nothing to do with each other. Well, real science at least, causing from your posts, I get a totally different definition of science.
Quote:
Of course it is believing - and absolute nothing else. Like all other relgions. What make your religion better than the thousands other? - Absoute nothing - it is just believing in some old stories.
I was talking about your "science". You said "bla bla bla", and I assumed (and I still do) that you don't have any idea about how really the Big Bang deals with all problems and criteria, since the real theory doesn't deal with what was "before" it would be just guessing, and you seem to say it does (that's where it all started).
I conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. Thus I conclude that whatever you say, including the "bla bla bla", is belief in the real scientists and you twist their meanings somehow and apply their theories to "before" the Big Bang.
Quote:
To bad you crashed - science can be hard to understand - maybe when you are older.
My AI knows about real science. It doesn't know about logical fallacies though. It goes in an infinite loop and it crashes
Science and religion has nothing to do with each other, Correct 
Even though religious people always seem to use pseudo-science in their explanations.
I am a scientist and know a lot about the scientific method. Too bad you seem to misunderstand what I wrote and read between the lines. Big Bang theory is the best science got until now. Yes, it is correct they can never find out what happend before big bang - that will be guessing. Some scientists guess (have hypotheses) that big bang is going in loops. That should explains the things you did not understand.
The christian creation explanation is just a question of believing. You can believe in it or not. Big bang theory will constantly be evolved or maybe rejected if a better explanation comes up due to new scientific knowledge.
Other religions have other creation explanations.
I just want you to answer one question. I asked it before and you probably "forgot" it
Religion is believing - and nothing else. Like all other relgions. What make your religion better than the thousands other religions?
This is my answer - Absoute nothing - it is just believing in some old stories. The one can be as good as the other.
Do you have another opinion - is your religion better than the others, if yes, please explain why ?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Science and religion has nothing to do with each other, Correct
Even though religious people always seem to use pseudo-science in their explanations.
???
Religious people use english in their explanations sometimes too. So language and religion are correlated? Will one end without the other?
Quote:
I am a scientist and know a lot about the scientific method. Too bad you seem to misunderstand what I wrote and read between the lines. Big Bang theory is the best science got until now. Yes, it is correct they can never find out what happend before big bang - that will be guessing. Some scientists guess (have hypotheses) that big bang is going in loops. That should explains the things you did not understand.
First of all, hypotheses are beliefs. Secondly, what you say "Big Bang theory is the best science got until now" is a CLAIM. You know, what religious people do.
I mean, I don't exactly get what you mean. Of course it's useful to predict many things about the Universe, though it has MANY problems (there was a thread here about the Big Bang, with no religion involved -- you might check that, it posed different hypotheses around it).
However we were talking before the Big Bang because that's what "creationism" is about (by the way, I'm not a creationist in that sense!). You brought that creationism argument, saying that 'science is better' or something. This fails for the simple reason that you can't COMPARE two things that talk about two different things. Science is NOT CONCERNED with "finding out" what was before the Big Bang, because it is concerned with PREDICTIONS. How can one be better than the other? The comparison makes NO SENSE.
And I know that creationism is not a science -- however, going by YOUR definition of science, it might fall a bit into it. Going by mine, which is the real, concerned with predictions, it falls completely outside of it. Science is more like a tool. You make up theories so you can use them later for predictions. If they work, all good. If they don't, or if they later prove to be invalid -- no worries, they were a tool anyway.
Notice that if you took them as TRUTH, rather than tool, you would have a problem. Since you would "change" the theory, it means either the old one was false (truth cannot be false), or that you have 2 truths? (impossible)
A real scientist KNOWS that science is not supposed to be how the world "actually is", because it is based on limited information on which science is built and MODELS and APPROXIMATIONS (rather than faith/trust/belief/hope). You can embrace these limitations and carry it as the real and cool thing that sets it apart from religions, or make more of it than it actually is, and doing so degrade it to just common fanaticism.
Quote:
Do you have another opinion - is your religion better than the others, if yes, please explain why ?
I'm not a very religious guy in the traditional sense, you could classify me as a theist instead -- someone who studies religion or thinks/philosophies about it. Well I have a certain bias to Christianity, but regardless of that, I was arguing before about your argument with creationism vs Big Bang, or whatever. (also note that the former doesn't even exclude the Big Bang, at least as I'm aware of it, like I said I never heard of creationism except from other people).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
MysteriousMox
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 01:41 AM |
|
|
Seems that you have made a science definition for me from reading A LOT between the lines. Laying some words in my mouth I have never said.
So you are "half" religious ? (what ever that is...)
Okay, let me reformulate the question.
Is christianity (and which) better than other religions? If yes, why ?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 02:19 AM |
|
|
You brought the subject of creationism -- that deals with the stuff before the Big Bang. And you compared it to science, obviously favoring the latter. The problem here is that the comparison itself makes no sense, since they're on totally different wavelengths of ideas (lol nice metaphor ).
Quote:
Is christianity (and which) better than other religions? If yes, why ?
The question itself makes no sense, since 'better' implies some form of measurement, whether subjective or objective, which I don't have available. I do not find it 'more important' if that's what you were asking (like I said, I'm more of a theist, so I really analyze different religions, like philosophers do on life, you know? it comes from philosophy as well)
My reasons for this are pretty complex, and unfortunately, I know how it sounds, but I've posted in this thread this around 3 times I guess (how do you think it got to 168 pages?  ) and it took more than one page (multiple posts). I can perfectly understand if you won't take the time to read the whole monstrous thread, ROFL I'm not crazy lol
One of the reasons being that I find the whole concept plausible -- where others say contradiction in free.. then there's the relatively "odd" experiences I had when thinking/feeling some things. Again, I do know, they are subjective, and some people would call them illusions, but you wanted to hear what I think, and I KNOW they are not; yes it is difficult to explain, especially because it involves a strange feeling (RELATED to thinking process that I did specifically for that -- some would call crazy coincidence), but you would also, for example, KNOW if you saw aliens (for example) too that they weren't illusions, even if everyone told you were hallucinating. (unless you happened to photograph them).
And by the way, God cannot be "seen", with the sensory information. He can be seen in the 'brain' like imagination is processed, but not by visual sensory, because God (obviously), philosophically speaking, doesn't exist in this world as matter (or light, which is also matter since it can be converted). Without light eyes are worthless. This doesn't mean that the brain visual itself is -- people can "see" things without their eyes (and I'm not talking about dreaming only -- think of the blind and strange stories some explain!).
Also there are also philosophical arguments I have that have pro-value for a certain extra-planar being (lol that sounds so weird), and it is sometimes cool because they fit with a few of the God images and portrayals in most religions. For example, the notion that God, obviously, exists outside of time -- which makes omniscience and omnipotence easy phenomenons in themselves, in fact, even eliminates the logical contradiction between omniscience and free will (please do not ask me to detail this again, I answered this a lot more than others in this thread... at least 10 times already).
Also note that this 'story' of mine is "between the lines" hidden in some pages WAY BACK (not recently, maybe last year?), because I was arguing, not just presenting my opinion, so it's kinda chaotic. But then again, so will this page be "hidden and lost" in a year too, when we reach page 300, who will look at page 168?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 08:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In mathematics it has been proven that in any complex anough system there will be things that simply CANNOT be proven.
What does that mean? It means, that even in mathematics there are things that are a question of BELIEF since prove is impossible.
By the way JJ, that's called an axiom (or axioms) in math
And while I think math is even more pure than the natural sciences, I count it as a logical language rather than a science, since it doesn't even have theories in the scientific sense (with experiments).
Er, no, Death. Check here:
[url=null]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems[/url]
It means that in any axiomatic system with a certain (not very high) complexity there will be things that are UNDECIDABLE. At present, the problem that comes to mind is the question whether the number of prime twins is infinite or not: until now no one has managed to find prove for one thing or another, and after Gödel we know that it may just be impossible to prove it one way or another.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 11:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I do agree with the above.
But scientists are one of the groups where there are fewest religious.
And the greatest ones of them were agnostics, pretty much agreeing that a higher power behind the universe is very possible and pretty logical. Einstein, Hawking - to name a few. But you conveniently ignore those, huh?
Atheism or Theism (or Agnosticism) have nothing to do with intelligence, because those people were/are genious.
Atheism or Theism (or Agnosticism) have nothing to do with science since those men were/are the greatest scientists of all time.
Science and religion are UNRELATED.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
MysteriousMox
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 04:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I do agree with the above.
But scientists are one of the groups where there are fewest religious.
And the greatest ones of them were agnostics, pretty much agreeing that a higher power behind the universe is very possible and pretty logical. Einstein, Hawking - to name a few. But you conveniently ignore those, huh?
Einstein is only one person and did not believe in a personal god (see the lines below - the full letter can be seen if you go to the link). And from believing a god is possible to believing the things written in the Bible or Coran is VERY VERY VERY FAR from each other). A lot of other great scientists are not religious. And my sentence it still correct:
"scientists are one of the groups where there are fewest religious"
I know you will not believe this: but it has also been shown that non-religious have a higher IQ compared to religious, but it seems that religious are more happy (so if you are stupid you will have a happy life...). You can of course question the investigation. I have only seen it refered (in Danish) and have not read the scientific part.
To my knowledge it is not leagal to teach children about intelligent design (creationism in descise) or creationism instead of evolution in biology (USA). Most of the nobel prize takers (in relevant categories) who are the finest brains in US were very much involved in this decision (thanks to them). This shows how happy scientist are about creationism and intelligent design.
Einstein letter:
“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.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
Atheism or Theism (or Agnosticism) have nothing to do with intelligence, because those people were/are genious.
Atheism or Theism (or Agnosticism) have nothing to do with science since those men were/are the greatest scientists of all time.
Science and religion are UNRELATED.
In the scientist group there is a lot more non-religious compared to many other groups. Very understandable because religion is just postulates which have no evidence at all - you can choose to believe or not. And then we got the fact that we got thousands of religions - A religious christian would probably be a muslim if he was born in Iran and Hindu if he was born in India. For me this seems like not taking a choice your self - you just follow the masses. I do very well understand why a lot of the scientists today are non-religious. They are use to make use of common scense and evidence - not anything you find in religion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 05:12 PM |
|
|
Of course religion is about believing. What point are you trying to prove here? The obvious?
As for Einstein, yes, he did not believe in a personal God, I read an interview with him, don't worry, I know the facts. Do you know his famous quote about hearing the music of the spheres, though?
Quote:
In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres."
I really like that quote and I agree totally. And for him being "just a single person" - who cares, he was among the greatest. Just proves my point that intelligence has nothing to do with God, contrary to what you seem to imply.
And you seem a person that definitively can't hear the music of the spheres. Sorry *winks*
Try Hawking's "Brief History of Time", if you don't believe science and religion can go well together.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
tob
Hired Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 05:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you are really convinced we are that evil, you better start arming yourself. We are an ever growing population.
Sounds like organized religion to me.
When will the crusades take place?
Quote:
Hitler was a catholic and talked about God in his speeches.
"Gott mit uns" (God is with us) even stood on the belts of the SS-soldiers.
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao may be atheists, but their actions were because of political ideolism and wrong strategies of how to run the countries and not done because they were atheists.
I thought this subject was already classified as pointless. And who said Hitler didn't do it for his 'idealism'? After all, his 'religion' was BASED on his 'idealism'.
I thought it was obvious to people that religion only was a convenient instrument for Hitler to use.
|
|
tob
Hired Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 05:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wow Sweden topped the list! Im so happy ^^
Then I was right about that most people in Sweden are atheists like I have said before!
In my class there are like 26 people and 2-3 are religious.
Today people only become religious because their parents influence them with religion and faith.
Thats a very simple way to state that religious people are ignorants. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 05:39 PM |
|
|
Tob, Xerox is a successful troll, don't pay attention to him.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 06:04 PM |
|
|
I KNOW God is benevolent, because he allows this boring discussion to continue...
... And Xerox to be obscenely wealthy...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 06:18 PM |
|
|
Please post some data for your claims Doomforge. "a higher power behind the universe is very possible and pretty logical" Where do you gather they believe so? That is not true, at least in the case of Einstein. Don't really know about Hawkins, but I don't believe it without evidence. If you are referring to the ONE sentence in ONE of his books, you are overreacting.
A study published in Nature (1998) by Larson and Witham showed that only 7% of scientist in National Academy of Science (USA) believed in a personi God, personified. These are considered "top of the class" scientists. The percentage of believers rises when the study includes the less credited scientists as well (up to 40%). In huge contrast to the mass population of USA, where it reaches 90% almost.
It is clear that there is an correlation between scientists of high merit and lack of faith.
In a similar study made in the Royal Society (equivalent on National Academy of Science, only in UK) showed that 3.3% believed in a personified God, where as 78.8% claimed the exact opposite (atheists). The rest were in between (not sure, or believe in some higher deity)
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 27, 2009 06:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In a similar study made in the Royal Society (equivalent on National Academy of Science, only in UK) showed that 3.3% believed in a personified God, where as 78.8% claimed the exact opposite (atheists). The rest were in between (not sure, or believe in some higher deity
And that's why God hates Britain.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
