BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:15 AM

Steve Shaw, the problem that hampers your understanding of people who accept the findings of science, such as evolution, and are still able to be theists is that you do not understand the nature of belief.
Everyone who believes in a deity either lives with a parodox (possibly several) or adopts a fundamentalist position whereby they deny what is obviously true. Focussing on the former, it is possible to accept paradoxes by recognising that there are things that one does not know, cannot know and will never know. This position seems to enrage (or irritate or confuse or whatever) those who pride themselves on being entirely rational.
There is more than one way of being fundamentalist. Telling theists that they have to recognise that they cannot think in a certain way because you have demonstrated they are wrong might be considered one of those ways.
(By the way, the hubris and arrogance you demonstrated in a previous post in which you suggested that I might need, want or require your approbation was truly breathtaking.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:23 AM

Evolution not only doesn't require intelligent control, intelligent control is anathema to the whole concept. And selection isn't evolution. You have not addressed the crux of the matter, that evolution and a creator of everything cannot sit alongside each other.

Interesting point about historians, Dave. As the gospel writers whose gospels we accept for biblical use (there are others...) didn't actually know Jesus and were writing many years after his death, they were, de facto, historians. But they're dead.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:27 AM

Almost none regard the bible as the literal truth.

So, in a nutshell, what is the basis of christian belief?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:44 AM

Whatever, Brendan. All I try to do is express what I'm thinking. I see others using careless language here and I have no desire to emulate them.

There is nothing in Christian thinking, as far as I know, that prohibits intellectual grappling. If you see a paradox, you should be asking yourself whether it's a paradox because of incomplete understanding, in which case let's delve more, or whether it's merely an apparent paradox because we're in denial, in which case let's ditch the baggage of preconceptions and take the thing on with ruthless honesty. In the case in point, I've argued that the process of evolution is entirely incompatible with the concept of a creator of everything and I've given my reasons for thinking that. In my opinion, the only possible reconciliation could be achieved either by rewriting God or rewriting evolutionary theory. I'm not up for that and I suspect neither are you. As a scientist I think it's defeatist to think that we can stop investigating stuff because there are things we can never know. I suspect that God, having given us mighty brains, would agree with that. By the way, very little that I read on this forum ever enrages me, honest.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 06:56 AM

"Telling theists that they have to recognise that they cannot think in a certain way because you have demonstrated they are wrong might be considered one of those ways."

Pointing out the inconsistencies in a person's world view is NOT telling them that they are wrong nor is it telling them that they HAVE to recognise anything! There is no element of compulsion! The fact that, when their world view is questioned, theists often agressively claim that they being subjected to some form of compulsion suggests to me that they may be insecure in their beliefs.

As far as I am concerned, everyone is free to believe anything they like - until, that is, if those beliefs are irrational, they try to impose them on others - particularly children.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:05 AM

" As a scientist I think it's defeatist to think that we can stop investigating stuff because there are things we can never know."

Sorry, that's ambiguous. As a scientist I don't accept that, just because there may be things we will never know, we should stop investigating stuff. Phew.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:11 AM

Dave, I can not put it in a nutshell for you.
Sorry.

Steve,
Evolution not only doesn't require intelligent control, intelligent control is anathema to the whole concept.
Agreed.
Also the rock cycle, galaxy formation, and every other natural process.
A creator God is not disproved by any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:39 AM

Ok - How about in a paragraph or two? Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe he was the son of god? Do you believe god sent him to earth to rid of of our sins? Simple things like that. If so, where did those beliefs come from?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:42 AM

and I am sure we are not contained to the US bible belt either, gillymoor. and I don't suppose keith is lieing but probably mistaken, perhaps taking a more parochial/c of e view than global. but at the end of the day, consensus is a weak argument, as the most have often been wrong before, but persisted in their error for a long time.
steve, there is a longer definition, but since you wanted what I understand by it in 3 lines
begin with your ideas, howsoever arrived at.
test and test again...ie observable, repeatable,
treat as confirmed till such time as demonstrated otherwise.
btw, you say ...selection isn't evolution... as far as I got in origins, it seemed Darwin thought so ? or at least his proposed mechanism ?.
shimrod, when I say the bible accords more with science, I do not so on the flimsy base of consensus.....that is what you do for origins !.
examples.....the bible predicts organisms reproducing after their kind, ie the horse kind , cat kind. mankind, etc. this is observable and repeatable. Darwinism speculates otherwise but never demonstrated it. the bible posits a creator, ie everything that has a beginning must have a cause. evolutionism says everything from, nothing via no one. your , who created God is a non starter because I don't believe in a god that needed to be created. and I would appreciate you laying off the bad lanquage, if you want direct replies, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 07:44 AM

A creator God is not disproved by any of them.

Again, that's just an unsupported assertion. You will note that I'm saying in my posts a God who creates everything. As far as I know, that is the usual Christian view of God. If you have a different version of God who doesn't create everything, let's be having it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 08:03 AM

The other contender for Clarkson's ex-job is, apparently, Chris Evans. Oh dear! 😳

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:16 AM

". . . everything that has a beginning must have a cause."

Prima facie that looks to be true, but it's a tough one to prove, Pete. We make the assumption that there is a cause, but how can that be demonstrated? I suppose that eventually every interaction that transpires has a cause and a cause before that, etc, but at what point in the interactions does God/god/G-d enter the equation? And what is god? If god is the ignition switch then god's job is finished once the motor starts running. It often boils down to the questions of riddle and paradox. Can god devise a question he is unable to answer?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:36 AM

Oooh - Do I see the start of a religious war? ars believes the bible is true while Keith says it is not so but still believes in god and that JC was his son? Who will be first to burn the other as a heretic I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:40 AM

"but at the end of the day, consensus is a weak argument, ..."

What is it with you and consensus, pete?

Imagine you've been accused of [insert crime] and been tried in a court of law for it. The jury has reached its verdict and the judge sums up:

Judge: "Peter Seven Stars, you have been found guilty of [insert crime] and I will now pass sentence. Now I know that eleven jurors decided that you were innocent - but we all know that consensus is bollocks, don't we? The twelth juror, though, thought that you were guilty as hell and as I like the cut of his jib and he's wearing a blue jumper - my favourite colour is blue - I'll go with what he thinks. I hereby sentence you to 10 years in jail without remission. Take him down!"

You wouldn't like that, would you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Keith.
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 09:55 AM

Pete and I disagree, but why would we burn each other?
Intelligent, tolerant people do not behave like that.

The headline for the main leader in New Scientist this week,

"Thank god for civilisation
The idea that religion led to modernity is gaining strength"

Dave, I decline to explain my faith to you.
If you really wanted to know about Christianity, the answers are very easy to find.
You are just looking for ammunition to use in your mocking and ridicule.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 10:36 AM

I've been an agnostic / rational / humanist since my teens.
I'm happy enough to lead a life of benign indifference
- I don't care what other folks worship
as long as they don't try to impose their control on me
or the institutions and laws that regulate our shared culture & society...

If a scientist can positively reconcile a faith in a god
with such an intellectually vigorously demanding chosen professional vocation
- well that's a fair compromise innit ...???

But any person of extreme faith who denies the value of science
with venomous hostility - what an ignorant dangerous pillock !!!

there.. surely those are easy enough ideas to live with.....

Now off to plug a guitar into a fuzz box and amp and rock away an hour
before the mrs gets back from the shops....


.. and as for Jeremy Clarkson, I really don't care if he definitely does exist
or is not just a construct of any tenuous grasp on reality...??? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 10:38 AM

And why, if that really is Keith, are you not logged in?

I know about faith. My Grandfather was a priest and my Dad was deeply religious until the day he died. I went to a faith school from 1957 until 1969. I was an altar boy, first in the Russian Orthodox church and then the Catholic church. I studied the bible and other christian texts as part of my higher education. I know that the whole basis for christianity is that Jesus was the son of god, sent down to absolve us of original sin that was put there by his dad in the first place. All these things are in the bible and it is no good saying the old testament does not count, as it is the basis for the new.

So, tell us then, either trolling guest or Keith if that really is you. How do you decide which bits of the bible are true and which bits are not?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM

Guest #.....an interesting and intriguing post, why cant more members look at things a little more deeply.....all the best...A

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 01:11 PM

I will confirm these posts as mine later.
I am a member of CofE.
I doubt any member believes that the universe began with a 6 day conjuring trick 4000 years ago, and that is no part of the teaching of my church.
Or Jonah living inside a whale, or pairs of animals boarding an ark.
This is all from an old oral tradition thousands of years old, not literal history.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 01:47 PM

I will confirm these posts as mine later.

If and when you do, I will believe it.

In the meanwhile

This is all from an old oral tradition thousands of years old, not literal history.

No it isn't. It is from the bible. A book that millions of people use as the basis for their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 03:13 PM

'How do you decide which bits of the Bible are true and which bits are not?'

That is a very reasonable question. Unfortunately I do not think that there is a single answer. I know how I do it. The Gospels contain a view of how life should be lived to which I subscribe. I suppose it is not a question of whether it is all literally true but whether the underlying message resonates with me, and it does. The Old Testament traces (supposedly) the history of the Jewish race; it is treated with respect in most Christian churches because some of it foreshadows the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ. However, it is my perception that a good many Christians give scant attention to the Old Testament and that most recognise that it is more myth than reality. The fact is that truth is a slippery customer and that religious belief cannot be equated with objective truth, unless of course you are a fundamentalist, which I am not.

Shimrod, when I used the word 'must' in the post to which you objected I was not suggesting compulsion but implying that it was Steve Shaw's view that one could not, logically, think in that way. I thought that that was quite clear, I apologise for confusing you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 15 - 03:38 PM

Well there's a fair chance that much of the four gospels is also myth. The jury's definitely out on whether Jesus even existed at all, and there are some pretty irreconcilable inconsistencies between the four accounts. It seems to me that, as the accounts were written long after the death of Jesus, they are most likely not intended to be historical documents, more a tendentiously produced manifesto for a new religion. Much of what Jesus is alleged to have said resonates with me, too, but some of it doesn't. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and turning the other cheek to someone who's attacked you, sound suspiciously like hippie philosophy to me.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:46 AM

Confirming my posts.
Dave, those ancient stories were passed on orally for millennia before they were ever written down.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:55 AM

For the record, everything Musket said on the closed scots thread about me and about meeting me is untrue, except that I believe there is only one person writing his posts

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:21 AM

If the Romam Emperor, Constantine (reigned 306 337 AD) had not adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire, would we have even heard of it - or would it now be regarded as just an obscure ancient cult, known only to a few historians?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:22 AM

Thanks Keith - Hope you understand my doubts.

So, what bits do you believe in?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Thompson
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

Would there be any way (as is done on other forums) to ask people who want to talk about creationism vs evolution to do it on a thread that's specifically for that purpose, and perhaps for the mod to direct people there, and if they continue to discuss it on another thread to suspend their posting rights?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:58 AM

None of the famous four gospels was written before at least forty years had passed since Jesus's death. Think what that means with regard to all those "quotations" of his that form the bedrock of Christianity. Tape recorders didn't exactly exist in those days. The only references to the man Jesus we have are all by the religious writers who were on his side. There is not a single reference to Jesus in any secular source from the time, and sources from the time are abundant. Rather strange. I should like to know how these facts sit with your take on what represents valid historical sources and legitimate historians, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 05:01 AM

Go with the flow, Thompson. I know that this blatant thread drift seems a bit odd, but do you really think there much more to be said about Jezza? Is preserving this thread in its pure form really that important?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 05:36 AM

Apparently the boss of the BBC has received death threats for sacking Clarkson......what a mad society we are creating.

Almost everyone seems to live in "medialand"......is this Orwell's 1984 for the 21st century?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:03 AM

You're probably right, Ake. It's both pathetic and scary at the same time!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:29 AM

Recent myth has it that all their contracts expire at the same time, and JC sold his part of the progrsamme to the BBC not that long ago.
And talk of setting up a rival in America. And he has made a few friends in the Hollywooden Glitterati over the years.

Well I did posit to the effect, was this stupidity or tactical agenda.

Methinks I was right to be cynical. He is not stupid, he just does stupid things. A lot of them scripted.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 08:43 AM

The Rt Rev Keith A Hole of Hertford posted;

"Also the rock cycle, galaxy formation, and every other natural process.
A creator God is not disproved by any of them."

Perhaps, but neither is the idea that my pet dog created them, using the same evidence base.

Also, using the logic of theology, never mind science, Hawking put forward the perfectly reasonable theory that not only do you not need a God for the big bang, but the physics of the big bang preclude the very idea of it being created. There could be no conscious thought process to cause the big bang because cause and effect requires time, and time is a product, not a component of the big bang.

Presumably, there was a shortage of science teachers in Hertford. Anybody with an inkling of understanding would see that you were being disingenuous when you said "every other natural process."

That's the problem with God botherers. They cannot accept that it is a nice for them but otherwise irrelevant hobby, and try to twist science to accommodate their fantasy.

Dangerous fuckers, to a man.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 09:01 AM

I rather like the bifurcatory nature of this thread!

I'd have thought that Jezza is a bit tainted now and not such a good proposition. He cuts a picture of a somewhat ageing, scruffy, lonely, dyspeptic old bloke when you see the paparazzi shots of him having a fag outside his place. Time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 09:56 AM

". . . and time is a product, not a component of the big bang."

That is both profound and thought provoking. And true à part de ça.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 10:07 AM

Still this assumption that there actually was a happening or occasion or whatever which is subsumed under that catchall nomenclature 'Big Bang'. I OPd a thread some years ago which ran&ran&ran for a good while, asking simply "What went Big Bang?" I don't think a satisfactory answer [or indeed any sort of answer] in fact emerged. It's a copout concept, not much more useful than "God", SFAICS.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 10:50 AM

There are only two choices. Either the universe always existed or it started at some point. Since the universe seems to be, it therefore started at some point which is called the big bang. Unless you see another way.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:08 AM

Big band or wet fart...

- either way, we're all here and now adrift and along for the ride
on this deteriorating planet and need to make the best of it...

We're having tesco oven cook fish and chips soon
and settling down to watch a tripe blockbuster movie...

Wouldn't even have noticed Top Gear is cancelled...

Life really ain't so bad as it could be............

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM



Oh, just wait until they give Clarkson's old job to the Ginger Tosser.... 😳

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:29 AM

What, surely not to Danny Alexander?!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:36 AM

I'd have thought that Jezza is a bit tainted now

Like Clinton was over (pun intended) our Monica?

The American public are not that different from the UK.
Blokey peeps love a blokey peep. He is bucks office. A bit sordid, and a lot grubby. He will be a hit (pun intended) - watch this space.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:39 AM

"What, surely not to Danny Alexander?!"

LOL. No, Steve - Chris Evans! Personally, I'd far prefer Guy Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:44 AM

I don't think a satisfactory answer [or indeed any sort of answer] in fact emerged. It's a copout concept, not much more useful than "God", SFAICS.

Well, Michael, there's plenty of evidence for what happened between a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang right up to now. That evidence demolishes any concept of an eternal steady-state universe. It's not a copout because we're still looking. Copout concepts are those concepts that satisfy the incurious and the science-deniers. God is the greatest copout concept because billions of people who are told to believe in him don't question his existence, in spite of its incredibly high improbability. One concept is questioned to exhaustion, with all the scientific and intellectual resources we can muster ploughed into the quest, while the other is not allowed to be questioned at all in the minds of so many people. To equate them as both being copouts is, well, a bit of a copout really...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 11:46 AM

I sincerely hope you don't think I didn't know who you meant, Backwoodsman! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 12:04 PM

"Big band or wet fart... "... oops... errmmm specsavers here I come...

.. unless of course Stan Kenton or Syd Lawrence created the Universe...???😕

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:05 PM

because billions of people who are told to believe in him don't question his existence,

No-one is told to believe in Him.
You can not order belief.
Those that do believe still question, and experience doubt.
They are no less intelligent even than you Steve.
(Or even Musket, the other three in one.)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:16 PM

"No-one is told to believe in Him."

Disagree strongly...

can't say how different it might be nowadays
but back in a west country C of E infant school in the early 1960s
we were taught bible stories as if they were historical fact.

And also in primary school, morning assembly prayers and hymns were imposed
still with the presumption all us small kids accepted & believed..

Don't recall any token mention of comparative religions & belief
until starting grammar school.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:18 PM

OK, Steve -- so what DID go Big Bang, then? And don't say again it was the primal particle, or some such. Particle of what? Located where? Which came whence? Which, as Ben Elton points out in one of his novels, is well-known to be questions that only stupid people ask [ie bloody everybody, and only a liar will say different]. Don't tell me it's a concept with any more validity than God -- in whom, BTW, I don't believe; He/It/Whevs as big a copout as B. Bang Esq. But then, "Steady-State" doesn't tell us that much either, does it?

At least Mr Clarkson seems to be an identifiable entity of some sort...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:20 PM

..."ARE well known", sodit

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:33 PM

PFR, it was the same in my school and all UK schools before the 70s, but none of my friends were practising Chritians, and the ones I remain in touch with still are not.
It did not make you believe either.