This should be worth watching......
[Edited on 14/1/11 by Daddylonglegs]
First things first... I am not a believer in anything other than 'I am' and 'you are' and that one day we will cease to be.
Anyway, I was just thinking about our legal system (as it relates to Scotland). I've been a Crown witness on dozens of occasions and when asked
if I will take the Oath prior to giving my testimony, I have instead requested to Affirm. More often than not this has resulted in people looking at
me as if I have two heads!
My point is this: There is not a single shred of proof that a God exists. It's fair to say that some think a God exists only because someone
else told them so. That's called hearsay and hearsay is not given much credence in court - in fact, it's mostly prohibited and often cannot
be heard!
Why then is the validity of peoples entire testimony heard on the basis of the greatest example of hearsay that there ever was!?
Yours confusedly!
Scootz
This should be worth watching......
[Edited on 14/1/11 by Daddylonglegs]
lol never thought about that. i definitely agree though. if i'm ever a witness (never have been yet) i'm going to say exactly what you wrote
there. should be fun 
Do forgive my lack of forum etiquette... I've just remembered that it's bad manners to start such a thread without first supplying a
complimentary bowl of
Oooooooooooo a big bowl Yum Yum
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Do forgive my lack of forum etiquette... I've just remembered that it's bad manners to start such a thread without first supplying a complimentary bowl of
Interesting point, never been in a court. So if a witness isn't Christian what are they asked to do as an oath? Anyone any ideas, i.e do they have several holy books handy and a different card to read from depending on your faith?
Can't remember seeing any non-christians giving evidence in court... I would guess that they would have to affirm as Scots Law certainly is
heavily entrenched in so-called christian-values.
That said... it's been some years now since I was last in a courtroom, so things might have changed. You can probably swear a Thetan Oath on one
of Ron L Hubbards Scientology paperbacks these days!
Is it like the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lay awake at night wondering if there really is a dog an whether he is truly omnivorous? Some people need a prop to make sense of their existence. In the words of Emile Zola "Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest!"
Interesting. It would be interesting to end an oath with "so help me aliens" and if it doesn't slip through explain that you don't
believe in God, but you do believe in aliens.
What do Nihilists do?
the whole system is out of date, we'd be far better off if we could 'clean out' the religon from the legal & political stuff (and
the schools too but thats another argument)
just because you don't beleve in a particular religon doesn't mean you have to disagree with the values / morals
(or even the festivals for that matter - most of the chrstian ones are probably alot older than christianity....)
at this point in the argument its normally a good time to start quoting another edinburgh man:
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence"
"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without
one"
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the
fact which it endeavors to establish"
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous"
"Be a philosopher but, amid all your philosophy be still a man"
"I have written on all sorts of subjects... yet I have no enemies; except indeed all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the Christians"
and many, many more.....
David Hume 1711 - 1776
I'm not going to suggest that everyone shouldn't be able to beleve what they like (so long as they don't hurt anyone else) - but we
could do without it in Law etc....
[Edited on 14/1/2011 by mcerd1]
I'm sorry, there is only ONE god.
All hail the Flying Spagetti Monster.
Aaaar Jim lad.
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
I'm sorry, there is only ONE god.
All hail the Flying Spagetti Monster.
Aaaar Jim lad.
I think it's nice for people to believe what they want to believe in!
At least religion provides a set of value for people to live by. Imagine no religion and no laws, not sure that society would rub a long too well!
Maybe Locostbuilders should swear on "The Book".
quote:
Originally posted by 907
Maybe Locostbuilders should swear on "The Book".
I'm with Richard Dawkins.
http://richarddawkins.net/
I think relegion (all of them) is the worst thing to ever fall upon this world, and probabaly any other! More pain, suffering, wars etc due to
religion than any or probabaly everything else in our history as bipeds.
Over half of all americans by religious denomination believe that this planet is less than 10,000 years old FFS! And they are the most powerful single
nation on earth with the biggest bombs
and the belief that GOD is on their side.
I'm not into censorship or banning things but if I were, then it would be religion. Room 101 here it comes!
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
I think it's nice for people to believe what they want to believe in!
At least religion provides a set of value for people to live by. Imagine no religion and no laws, not sure that society would rub a long too well!
Religious belief is much like political conviction, you can't truely lack either as not having one would amount to an ideology.
I don't believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old but if someone believes in an all powerful god that can do anything it's in no way
difficult for the planet to be that young and secondly, I don't really think it makes much in the way of difference.
Christianity It is the belief that a two-thousand-year-old Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically
eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in
humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple off a magical tree in a wonderland.
[Edited on 15-1-11 by mangogrooveworkshop]
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
At least religion provides a set of value for people to live by. Imagine no religion and no laws, not sure that society would rub a long too well!
It's a shame really, because most religions really can be summed up by something like "Be excellent to one another"
But someone had to add "Provided you are like me, otherwise I shall have to kill you" and it all started to fall apart...
As I christian I don't enjoy the agressive comments towards our faith, but I do believe you have the right to believe what you want and therefore
to not believe what you want. Afterall its your choice.
It just unsettles me how many people are ANTI religion, as apposed to not religious.
Maybe next time some of you speak/write with harsh words you'll remmember its normal people, and in this case a fellow car builder, on the other
end.
[Edited on 14/1/11 by CaptainJosh]
It's a bec cec thing. We each make our choice, and to critisise is small minded.
Also, assuming all Christians are creationists is like saying all atheists think life on earth actually started due to alien life.
It's easyto be narrow minded if you read everything that is pumped out at you regarding the other "side" but in the same way a load if
rubbish is spoken about evolution to diss it, there is just as much rubbish spouted about religion to make it sound like only emotional wrecks with no
grasp of scientific principles should look into it.
The original poster said that there is no proof that God exists. There is, though, a significant body of circumstantial evidence. I call as a
witness Marcus Chown, best selling science writer until that Stephen Hawkins chap came along. For the record, Chown is a self confessed atheist. In
his book The Magic Furnace, Chown describes how atoms are formed in stars and in doing so, tells the story of how scientists discovered this. His
musings cover the origins of the universe and he notes how exquisitely balanced the universe is. Not just a little but the are dozens of factors
that, if just one were out by a tiny fraction of a percent, there would be no stars in the universe, or no complex chemicals that are essential to
life, or no heavy elements, or no elements at all. He states that there are only two conceivable conclusions. Firstly, that there must have been
some intelligence that designed the universe with the required precision that we could be here. Second is that there must be countless trillions of
universes, all formed at random. Almost all are totally void. For the record, he prefers the latter conclusion.
This is the latest understanding on the subject and both are equally well supported by the known facts and current hypotheses. Neither is proven nor
disproven. Given this, can you really say that your preferred hypothesis is the truth and the other is not?
Thus, it is entirely plausible that God exists and equally plausible that God does not exist. The courts offer a religious and a non-religious oath
so that both camps are accommodated. Is that really so bad?
The Original point is that 'hearsay is not permitted in a Scottish Criminal Court.
Until there is 'proof' one way or the other, then religion remains hearsay at best and fiction at worse.
Therefore my point stands - how can the same court accept a persons testimony based on a book of hearsay... their credibility has fallen at the first
hurdle by admitting they believe in hearsay / fiction (and the Courts credibility falls with it).
Not looking for a religious-row...
for the record I'd count my self as agnostic (although I was christened in the kirk when I was a baby) and I don't have a problem with all
religons
e.g. I've no probem at with the way the Kirk [church of scotland] is run these days, its more or less democtatic and they are normaly very easy
going
but go back a few hundred years and even they were doing there own witch hunts....
in fact its not religon I've got a problem with, its organized religion - the source of quite alot of the wars in the last couple of thousand
years or more (although I admit it was often just used as an excuse)
the way I see their function in a community today is as a focal point for the big events in life (like birth, death, marrage.....) and to look out for
the more vulnerable people aswell as providing people to deal with those events - I just don't beleve that it would all fall apart if its place
was taken by something else without the religon
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The Original point is that 'hearsay is not permitted in a Scottish Criminal Court.
Whilst it is easy to blame religion for all the violence in the world, I have moved away from that position and toward the idea that men will find any
excuse to hurt fellow man.
It all about greed and power, not religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Marcus Chown
countless trillions of universes
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
quote:
Originally posted by Marcus Chown
countless trillions of universes
Mr Chown hasn't grasped the meaning of universe.
quote:
Originally posted by Xtreme Kermit
Whilst it is easy to blame religion for all the violence in the world, I have moved away from that position and toward the idea that men will find any excuse to hurt fellow man.
It all about greed and power, not religion.
quote:
Originally posted by CaptainJosh
As I christian I don't enjoy the agressive comments towards our faith, but I do believe you have the right to believe what you want and therefore to not believe what you want. Afterall its your choice.
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
Mr Chown hasn't grasped the meaning of universe. The Universe is everything. That's what it means, the whole lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Badger_McLetcher
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
Mr Chown hasn't grasped the meaning of universe. The Universe is everything. That's what it means, the whole lot.
Alternate universes mate. Think of different rooms in the same house, each a universe, seperated by a wafer thin membrane. A bit like those Japanese paper wall thingys. Except it's a house with infinite rooms and no doors. Oh yes, my grasp on physics is stunning
As far as religion goes- keep it to yourself and it's problem solved.
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
As soon as anyone puts an 's' on the end of 'universe', they are showing that they don't know what it means, or are trying to change its meaning. Just what is it about 'everything' that people don't understand?
If people want to have more than one of whatever it is that they understand by "universe" then they ought to think up a different word for it. How about "everything I can see from here", that would be better than "universes" which is meaningless.
To be pedantic..........
The word Universe can be used as both a singular and countable noun and therefore can be used in a plural form.
Scientists often speculate about parallel universes
Back to topic.............
Phil
Donald Rumsfeld.
There are known knowns.
These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know.
Until such times as all we have are known knowns, anything is possible until it is verifiably impossible.
Which we will never completely achieve.
There will always be some unknown unknowns.
That being the case, anything will always be possible.
P.S. I quote Rumsfeld, not out of respect, but because of the infamy of the statement.
Impressed Zil,
we had no quotes like that on our merry way to Englandshire.
Regardless of your beliefs, I find it very hard to comprehend how so many religions have the same roots as their beginnings. They have each evolved in
their own, often parallel directions but now they seem so different in their policies, yet still claim to be the 'right' God.
We cannot deny that there are more wars and conflicts because of religion. Religion has effectively killed more people than anything else on the
planet. Most religions seem to attribute most global disasters on their God. Just look at the poverty in this world and the suffering caused in the
name of religion. So if there is a God, has he just got a mean streak or what?
p.s. I'm an Agnostic, thank God
[Edited on 14-1-11 by RazMan]
You know I thought that was Bush who said that, now I realise he'd have probably tripped over that so much he'd never have finished saying
it.
AND GOD WANTED HIM TO DO IT!
Captain Josh.. having lurked on this site for a good few years, I don't think for a moment that this thread is a personal attack on you... but
several undeniable facts have been stated... human beings are corruptable... they can also be misled.. mis-informed... lied to... flattered...
threatened... greedy... lazy... etc.etc. so the institiutional religons are all open to and been used for abuse, which is continuing today with Islam
a very high profile example and Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland two very recent uses of religon to legitimise violence... I, personally am agnostic...
I rather like the buddhist philosopy (don't hurt another living thing) though this did not stop japanese samurai from killing..... a lot...
taking christianity back to its roots and simplest values (the coptic churches of egypt and ethopia are certainly the earliest) takes a lot of ROMAN
catholic spin out of the equation...
as Douglas Adams once wrote, "two thousand years after a man was nailed to a tree for saying we should be nice to one another...."
probably the simplest explanation for the original christian message I know... keithice
I'm with Atheism - Can't go wrong with a non-prophet organisation...
...I'll get my coat.
on a lighter note... I do believe in the spaghetti monster... and the lack of pirates is causing global warming...
I find religion a bit like when kids have an invisible freind, which as it's a child I can understand. But for an adult to need this prop they
must be very insecure. My religion is very simple I "try" to treat people as I would have them treat me, and some/most of the time I manage
it, Cheers Ray
I remember being sent to the headmaster high school for something I wrote in English lessons. We were told to review a work of fiction so I chose the
bible. Can't remember all of it but I put stuff like,
For probably the best -selling work of fiction ever it appears to be a haphazard collection of stories thrown together from a pile of old tabloids.
Some of the stories in the second half are repeated and not very consistently at either.
The first chapter had me in stitches. Darwin conclusively proves it's totally wrong.
The bit with a long list of people living 700/900+ years has obviously lost something in the translation. It gets a bit sad and gruesome towards the
end but then you find he's not really dead. Must be where they got the plot for the return of Bobby Ewing in Dallas.
Less believable than Star Wars.
The RC church was a political stunt to unite the Roman Empire, has caused more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined and held back
civilization/technology by at least 100 years.
If there is a god surely in this day and age it should be termed a superior being from outer space and not a very nice one at that.
Yes he wasn't very impressed. Humourless old f--t.
The current term is " Multiverse "and that is where quantum electrodynamics may be leading our thinking. But just because we coin a word
" Universe " to mean "everything" doesn't make it unquestionably true. My father used to say that he was taught that an atom
is the smallest indivisible particle of matter so anything that relied on splitting the atom was impossible, eg Hiroshima was a fake.
People are confusing God and religion. God didn't invent religion - we did. Hitler and Stalin killed millions without the need to use God as an
excuse. God isn't hanging adulterers in Iran - men are.
The OP seems to dislike affirming in court because people look at him funnily. Logically, in a sectarian age, shouldn't people find it odd if he
swore on a Bible or the Koran ? Swearing on a Bible is like Judges wearing wigs - it adds a bit of solemnity to the occasion and you don't
actually have to believe in God or the Judge's full head of hair to encourage you to tell the truth.
[Edited on 15/1/11 by Macbeast]
I'm just waiting for Wyld Stallyns to spread their word across the land and bring peace and harmony to us all.
Also, religious, aetheist or agnostic (which always reminds me of opticians...) you've got to know that God Gave Rock and Roll to You
I'm gonna have to watch them now
[Edited on 15/1/11 by Ninehigh]
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
To be pedantic..........
The word Universe can be used as both a singular and countable noun and therefore can be used in a plural form.
Scientists often speculate about parallel universes
Back to topic.............
Phil
Just too point out, atheism isn't a religion, it's a religious belief but there are alot of atheist religions.
As a response to something said earlier in this post, Many people have been killed by Atheists for believing in God(s), But I doubt many people have
been killed in the name of Agnostism.
Going back to the OP, Is God not a legally deffined entity in Scots Law? I would think that would be the case.
I'm going to turn this towards an autmotive direction.
Take F1 cars.
Aerodynamics in particular.
At any given time, there are always designers pushing for something more, a better way of doing things. Trying to discover the little tweak that the
other guys haven't thought of. They do all of these things because of what they think the air will do.
Up to a point, they know what it will do, but there is always an element of trying things because they might work.
Or they might not.
If there were absolute scientific answers to all of these problems, there would be no need to experiment. If we already know all of the answers
because science has already given us the answers, we don't need to conduct experiments.
We experiment, because we don't know everything.
Think about the sentence above for a few hours and then read on.
Medicine and pharmocology in particular are a bit the same.
Often a medicine will be created or experimented which has a beneficial effect to a condition, but the manufacturers don't know why. All they
know is that it works. They don't know why. It just works. But we don't know why.
The greatest minds will readily concede that whereas the human race might know more about our existence and the physical space in which we experience
it than we may previously have had, there is much more to do with our existence of which we still have no concept.
Yes, we have put in place structures, society, socially acceptable norms and procedures which make it easier to deal with what we don't
understand, but ultimately, we know little about how or why we are here.
That's my thoughts on the subject. Far better to be considered carefully than casually disposed of because of a dislike for the mass failings of
organised religion of which there have been many and no doubt will continue to be.
This guy is in a much more credible position than I could ever be in a thousand lifetimes, so
maybe best if you consider his views. I believe he is generally considered to be something of an authority.
Fresh on this morning...
Religion (or not) is a personal thing, you either belive in a god or not. That is your choice. Some things are explainable, some things are not. Again
that is a personal view point. What or who (if you believe in god) you choose to call your god is down to you (and the group of believers that you
might or might not belong to).
My personal belief is between me and my god, the diety knows what I believe and how I choose to show it (or not) It is two way, sometimes I will loose
my god and sometimes my god will loose me. Sometimes things just have an order to them and what is, IS. Generally speaking most religious followings
are run by someone, because being in-charge of a religious order means money and power, but not always (just incase you think I might be casting
dispersions at you or your religious belief).
One day (about 28 years ago) I went shore diving on the south coast, solo (yes BIG naughty), and when I surfaced to check my position and return to
shore I found I was about a mile and a half off shore with an off shore current. Low air in bottle so I roll onto my back and started finning for the
shore. 5 minutes later a voice behind me says "Do you want a lift mate?.". A couple of people in an RIB had appeared out of no-where. Go
figure, was it devine intervention or just dumb good luck. ?????
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
To be pedantic..........
The word Universe can be used as both a singular and countable noun and therefore can be used in a plural form.
Scientists often speculate about parallel universes
Back to topic.............
Phil
So I expect they will be changing the definition of 'everything' as well. So that we will start hearing stuff like "well, when I said everything, I didn't actually mean everything, I meant something." Or we could take it idea of changing the meaning of words even further, how about "it's in the fridge" also meaning "It's in the cupboard", or BEC meaning a car with a car engine in it.
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
The meaning of words can become obsolete, but their usage is still pervasive. Take 'atom' for example, it originally meant 'indivisible', but an atom is very far from that. We still talk about atoms, but we no longer think they can't be split into smaller components.
I'd say the word 'universe' changing in meaning as science becomes more advanced is exactly the same as what has happened to the word
'atom'.
However, looking in the Oxford Concise, the most applicable definition there is "all existing things; the whole creation; the cosmos". We
can only test the existence of something in this universe. It does not preclude the existence of universes which contain things that the cannot test
the existence of.
Just to move this away from dictionary corner.....
quote:
Originally posted by Macbeast
... Hitler and Stalin killed millions without the need to use God as an excuse...
Quick cards on the table moment: For me, the concept of a God-like divine being (in any religion) is ridiculous. However, I did read the bible some
time ago, which is just like reading any other work of fiction, and I can understand the origins of many of the misconceptions held within it.
I can accept that a bloke called Jesus wandered around, and created a cult following - this can be seen happening in the modern day world (Waco was
an example of this). But, nothing he was reported to have done could not be achieved by a talented illusionist such as David Blane, or Penn and
Teller, and it would be quite easy for someone like Derren Brown to create the same mass hypnosis and NLP effects that are written about.
Water into wine - simple illusion.
Bread and fish - sleight of hand.
Rolling the stone and disappearing from the cave - escapology.
'My dad is God' - hypnosis.
etc..
It's when people don't understand these tricks and say that they are miracles (and blow them out of all proportion) that things become
silly. And when they start to defend their views by killing others 'in the name of God' that it all becomes a little bit too much.
Hopefully one day there will be a common-sense revolution and all of this religion stuff will no longer be fashionable and be set aside so that the
human race can progress?
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
I'd say the word 'universe' changing in meaning as science becomes more advanced is exactly the same as what has happened to the word 'atom'.
However, looking in the Oxford Concise, the most applicable definition there is "all existing things; the whole creation; the cosmos". We can only test the existence of something in this universe. It does not preclude the existence of universes which contain things that the cannot test the existence of.
"God is...a gas... CO2... no wait, that's the devil" A.Partridge