25% Of People Believe In Angels Apparently !

[mikey4444]

Interesting article in this mornings BBC News website ::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24576115

According this survey, 25% of people interviewed for the survey, think that angels actually exist. You know, those creatures that look like man-sized pigeons. You couldn't make it up if you tried !

[jim360]

Depends on how you define "know". Far greater minds than yours and mind know far more about the Universe than you will ever do -- and yet apparently they have no idea either. This is complete and utter tosh. They do have an idea, verified by many thousands of experiments combining millions and billions of datapoints. And this means that they "don't know", because you don't? That is indeed the pinnacle of arrogance: that your own limits define those of humankind.

To say that "I don't know" is not arrogant in itself, of course, but that's if it's followed by "but then other people who've studied the problem to a far greater level than I have probably do have some idea", rather than "and no-one else does either". How sad it is that you don't realise this.

Anyway, it's not worth debating because with such an attitude you can never be proved wrong. But you have nothing constructive to offer either, other than a meaningless claim that "Science doesn't know everything" as if this is somehow news, or somehow implies that "everything it thinks currently will be shown to be wrong eventually".

Still, on the plus side, at least you've stopped this petty vow of never responding to my posts.

[jomifl]

/It's because those who say that they don't know then also assume that no-one else does either/
Not logical jim, I don't know much about art but I am prepared to accept that others (even Khandro bless'im) know a lot more than me.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Far greater minds than yours and mind know far more about the Universe than you will ever do -- and yet apparently they have no idea either.//

//"but then other people who've studied the problem to a far greater level than I have probably do have some idea", rather than "and no-one else does either". How sad it is that you don't realise this.//

We are discussing the so-called supernatural and what I have actually said is that no one knows any more about that than anyone else – and they don’t. If they did, there would be no argument. You consistently misrepresent me – and you are consistently rude – and that is why I don’t respond to your posts. Incidentally, something else you may be unaware of. Yours is not the only degree floating around these parts – so do stop bragging. It’s tedious. That’s all I have to say to you.

[Khandro]

jomifl; //If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough...
A. Einstein// - Here, absolutely here!
So what banged? and if you can't answer that, you can't disprove the theory that everything was created by (for want of a better word) God. n'est pas?

[jomifl]

No Khandro, not 'n'est ce pas', it isn't for me to explain about the big bang as I have no pretensions to being an astrophysicist. However you should be aware that the expression 'big bang' is just a popular name coined to identify events which happened at the beginning of the universe. There probably wasn't a 'bang' but whatever it was, was 'big'. There is more evidence for the existence of the 'big bang' than there is for the existence of god since there is a complete absence of evidence for the latter. If you have an argument to the contrary do go ahead and present it, I'm sure it will be treated with respect, so don't be shy. By the way, logically, lack of evidence for the big bang does not prove the presence of a god so your argument is pointless.

[jim360]

Of the two of us, Naomi, you're the only one who has been rude and insulting and patronising and misrepresenting and taken to task for it by others. You do have several things you ought to say to me, chief among them being an apology. Still, I'm not going to hold my breath.

As Christopher Hitchens, I believe it was, said, Khandro, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Hence I can dismiss without evidence the claim that the Universe was created by God, because there is no evidence for that assertion.

[naomi24]

Jim, you make it up as you go along. Give it a rest.

[Khandro]

jim; As you are a follower of that clown Hitchens, I suppose you can.
jomifl; You miss the point; we have previously been told we live in a world "governed and explained by physics", but physics is a man-made construct, or do you believe it is all "out there", are you an observer or are you participant?

[atalanta]

Has it occurred to anyone, going back to the subject of angels, that if a creature has six limbs ( arms, legs, wings) it can only be an insect ?
There may be a distant folk-memory of a time early in the earth's history when there were indeed monstrous insects which could appear vaguely human.
That's the nearest I'm going to get to believing in angels, anyway. I don't "do" the supernatural.

[pixie373]

Not really, because insects have six legs and two pairs of wings. However, i don't "do" supernatural , either.

[jomifl]

Khandro, you clearly don't understand what physics is. Nobody claimed that physice rules the universe, it just tries to explain how the universe rules itself. Now try to misunderstand that.

[jim360]

Whatever Naomi -- I'm not making anything up.

Like I've said many times, the problem with your arguments is that they can never be falsified because you can always cling on to some hope that the future will change everything. On the other hand, I can be proved wrong. And in many ways it would be lovely if I were. The ball, as they say, is in your court.

[naomi24]

Jim, there is no ball and there is no court. This is not a battle – well at least not from my point of view. It is supposed to be a discussion about angels, but you seem to be incapable of debating anything with me without dragging totally unrelated conversations we’ve had in the past into the mix. So far here you’ve accused me of arrogance, of ignorance, and of insulting you simply because I’ve said that no one knows any more than anyone else about the so-called supernatural - and if you think that you, among all men, are different, you are deluding yourself. Just get one thing straight. This is not about me and your constant personal criticism has no place here. Perhaps joining a debating society to learn how to conduct yourself without going off at a tangent would be beneficial to you?

[Khandro]

jomifl; You err, it isn't in this day and age necessary to be a practising physicist to know what physics is and have a reasonable grasp of its scope (and limitations). Similarly I do not need to be a doctor to understand medicine.
I do though, know the difference between Rimbaud and Rambo. :-)

[jomifl]

Khandro, don't kid yourself, if you did understand those things that you claim to understand then you wouldn't ask the questions that you ask. What was that quote about not knowing what you don't know? :o)

[jim360]

I think your own debating schools could do with a bit of work too, Naomi. Anyway, I suppose best for both of us to move on. But frankly you have been far ruder to me over this site than I have been to you. And I don't like it when people are rude or disrespectful to me, and don't like to let it go unchallenged.

Maybe you have more to say to me than you thought you did? It's a pity for both of us that we lost respect for each other -- for myself, I found some of your points to be important in forming my own views. A debate like this is clearly not one of those times, but don't forget that.

[Khandro]

jomifl; More typical obfuscation; unable, as you admit you are, to answer my questions, you tell me that because I know nothing of the subject, I am therefore not eligible to ask the question in the first place - pedagogics of the madhouse!

[naomi24]

Jim, so you don't like it when people are rude and disrespectful to you, but feel it's perfectly acceptable to deem me arrogant and ignorant for no apparent reason. How does that work then? Although you ignored it, you were told earlier in this thread by someone else that your reasoning insofar as what you accused me of here was illogical - and it was. Nevertheless you persisted. You say you will defend yourself, but I see no attack here upon you, so perhaps you should consider the possibility that your own sensibilities are rather delicate. I haven't been rude to you, and this constant nastiness resulting from your misguided perceptions is as ridiculous and as unpleasant as it ever was, and it was my mistake to engage with you again - a mistake I won't repeat. Please do me the courtesy of ignoring my posts in future - doubtless you'll find something elsewhere to be offended by.

[jomifl]

Khandro, Try harder..

[jim360]

No can do, Naomi -- you're in no position to tell me what I can and can't ignore. I'll continue to post on your threads and reply to any points you make as and when I choose to.

As it happens I'm sure my sensibilities are somewhat greater than they should be -- but that doesn't detract from the fact that, if not here then certainly in the past, you have been incredibly rude, to me and to others. Such a shame that you can't see that. Granted, perhaps I've been rude in this thread, but then that's the result of pent-up frustrations from the fact that honestly you have been very direct and confrontational and rude to me, and there's a limit to the amount of patience I can show. No doubt you won't recognise any of this and will persist with this strange idea that you are never at fault for the way you conduct yourself. Still, it's odd that everyone else seems to notice it and comment on it -- even Ab Editor did once, though characteristically you rejected his comments.

Anyway, you have been rude to me, if not in this thread then certainly in the past. Here's hoping that one day you might realise that, and conduct yourself better in future.