Who created the...

[Ravi]

any good arrogant, atheist, close minded, religion bashing, scientist making a showing on the ballots lately? or wait...ever?

Not all atheists are arrogant, closed-minded, religion bashing, or scientists.

 

[Nemo Securus]

im not saying they are that was just a shot at shogun alone. Could there be such thing as an atheist nazi? maybe that would sum him up a little better.

 

[Ravi]

im not saying they are that was just a shot at shogun alone. Could there be such thing as an atheist nazi? maybe that would sum him up a little better.

I dunno. An atheist nazi sounds like someone that goes after atheists, hmmm? It's a little rude to assume Shog is a scientist.

 

[Shogun]

any good arrogant, atheist, close minded, religion bashing, scientist making a showing on the ballots lately? or wait...ever?

por que? I take it you didn't have a SINGLE example of dogma trumping science then? BALLOTS? is that how you think we come to understand our physical world around us?

 

[Shogun]

im not saying they are that was just a shot at shogun alone. Could there be such thing as an atheist nazi? maybe that would sum him up a little better.

ahh.. ad hominems. awesome. Hey, don't forget to bring the gasoline to the BONFIRE too!


poor guy.. sucks having to run to the shit talking since you know damn well you can't name a single example of dogma trumping science, eh?


but, you are new so.. welcome to the board anyway!

 

[Shogun]

I dunno. An atheist nazi sounds like someone that goes after atheists, hmmm? It's a little rude to assume Shog is a scientist.

the open challenge is still ready for you, or anyone else, to give me a single example of dogma trumping science, Ravi. I mean, it's not as challenging as, say, a federal I9 form but...

 

[Ravi]

the open challenge is still ready for you, or anyone else, to give me a single example of dogma trumping science, Ravi. I mean, it's not as challenging as, say, a federal I9 form but...

I agree with you this time. Just couldn't resist.

 

[Nemo Securus]

Ok guy that says trumping way too much. I don't know exactly how many times I or anyone else has to say this but I'm not saying religion proves anything that science can't. To me religion is a tradition of sorts. An outlet for people to turn to when they feel they need help spiritually. A concept everyone can't grasp (which is perfectly fine), but for those who can it helps emotionally in ways science cannot. You, obviously being not a very sympathetic person can't seem to understand that the purpose of religion is not to disprove anything but to help people. I myself am not a religious person but I have seen and appreciate what a lot of churches do for PEOPLE.
Sure there are radical extremist out there that press their ideals on other. But if you would broaden your narrow minded horizons a little and accept the fact that we are not all lucky enough to be as brilliant as you and some feel the need to turn to a religion for guidance. Im happy for you though that you have had such a wonderful life of enlightenment and joy that you don't need anything but your twisted morals and pseudo-intelligence to get you through the day. Everyone is not that lucky so back off. Or maybe is it that you are jealous that others have found a way to make them happy and help them cope with life and you have not been able to do so? hmm




True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing -Socrates

 

[LOki]

It's one of the mysteries. Like...how can they be three separate entities, yet all God;...

Consider that three separate, yet fungible qualities describe Volume: Width, Height, and Depth. Width, Height, and Depth are essential, non-overlapping, non-conflicting, and non-dissociable elements of volume. Similarly, God is The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost; all three are God--each is and essential, non-overlapping, non-conflicting, and non-dissociable element of God.

how can God know every thought, every outcome and have a purpose for every earthly occurrence...and yet at the same time we have free will and are given the choice (and expected to try to make the right choice) to choose right, wrong, or indifferent...

For the same reasons God cannot create a rock he cannot lift; He can't.

...and how can Jesus be God's son if he's always been with God?

The names for the three aspects of God are a naming convention, rather than a description of familial relationship. Jesus is not God's son any more than The Father is God's Father or The Holy Ghost is God's Ghost; rather Jesus is The Son of God exactly the way The Father is The Father of God, and the Holy Gost is the Holy Ghost of God--see the above discussion regarding the length of a volume, the height of a volume and the depth of a volume.

 

[LOki]

There is an interesting sort of cop-out built in to the Big Bang theory. If all the universe's matter were, at one point, compressed into a singularity, then it would be physically impossible for us know anything about that matter before that point, because of the information-obliterating nature of black holes.

The information-obliterating nature of black holes is not absolute.

Why anyone actually believes the Big Bang theory is beyond me, though.

The answer is evidence; that's why.

Don't get me wrong; it's a perfectly good model for the scientific method. After all, the galaxies appear to be moving away from eachother, and they appear to be filled with giant smoldering embers, swirling dust clouds, and lots of debris. In short, the universe physically resembles an explotion, and the Big Bang theory is, essentially, the assumption that universe is what it looks like, which is exactly the sort of assumption the scientific method calls for in its working hypotheses.

Huh. It seems you DO understand why people would believe the Big Bang Theory.

But you're not actually supposed to start believing such models until they've been extensively tested; the method calls for the cycle of observe, theorize, test, observe, tweak/replace the theory, test, etc. to be repeated many times before any real stock is to be put into the resulting theory. With this particular phenomenon, though, we can't really do any testing and our observational abilities are sorely limited, so the resulting theory, no matter how fitting to the method, should not be seen as anything more than a fantasy.

The theory may not have been through sufficient cycles of observation, testing, hypothesizing, testing , observing, tweaking, etc...to suit you, but what it been through is absolutely delivers less fantast than an invisble white father who lives in the sky, who is all knowing, and all powerful, but needs your complete obediance...and your money.

It irritates me in general when people treat Science as some sort of religion.

Me too.

It is logically impossible for the scientific method to result in certainty. Faith in science is paradoxical.

Ageed. For no other reason than faith requires one to actually deny evidence and valid logic, and to claim certainty of ones conviction based ONLY upon the desperate desire for certainty of one's convictions.

Sometimes it seems people see science as they key to understanding everything, but the scientific method is just a tool, and like any tool better suited to some jobs than others.

Yes. And science is a tool of reason--a tool suited, in this case, to discovering and describing the nature of the universe.

Science is only really useful for investigating phenomena that can be quantified and reproduced in controlled environments.

It is also useful for investigating phenomena that can be quantified and reproduced in natural environments too.

There are some very relevant things that fall under that category (the physical patterns of force and motion, for example), but really they only make up a fraction of human experience, and there are many, many questions that the scientific method simply cannot usefully address, either because of the limitations of our ability to observe and test (as in: what shape was the universe in billions of years ago?),...

This is a short sighted as past claims that the structure of the atom could not be usefully addressed, or the atmosphere of Mars could not be usefully described.

...or because of the nature of the phenomenon being questioned (as in: are events influenced by a superbeing existing outside of time and space?).

If the phenominon has observable and measuable effects in our time and space, science is a useful tool for describing and measuring it.

Faith, as an alternative, is useful only for keeping the masses gullible enough to buy into theocratic authoritarian power ponzi schemes. Setting aside allowing thieves, rapists, pedophiles, and murderers an opportunity to die with a clear conscience...that's about it.

 

[Shogun]

I agree with you this time. Just couldn't resist.

you can call me a temptation, Ravi.. i wont mind.

 

[Abelian Sea]

The answer is evidence; that's why.

Somewhat thin evidence, I think, to determine what happend 15 billion years ago. For all we know, the universe is more of a churning soup, and it just so happens that all the galaxies we can see are moving away from eachother for now, or there may be other explanations for the red-shift that makes it look like the galaxies are spreading apart.

The Big Bang theory is the simplest extrapolation from the most straight-forward interpretations of our current observations. That's what makes it a good scientific theory. It doesn't make it true, though. The evidence is far from overwhelming and the tests nonexistant.

You could argue that of all the popular "creation" stories, the Big Bang has the most emperical evidence going for it, but that isn't saying much.

Personally, I have yet to hear a creation story that didn't sound weird, silly, and unbelievable, and I've certainly never heard one that had enough substantial and well-tested evidence supporting it that I would believe it despite my reservations.

Huh. It seems you DO understand why people would believe the Big Bang Theory.

I listed reasons it was a good scientific theory.

It isn't rational to believe something just because it's a good scientific theory, though. Good scientific theories approach certainty asymptotically in proportion to how well-tested they are. This one is a long way off from that.

Yes. And science is a tool of reason--a tool suited, in this case, to discovering and describing the nature of the universe.

Hm. Perhaps I'm just a romantic, but I can't help but suspect that there's more to the nature of the universe than patterns of physical behavoir, but *shrug* I can't really say.

This is a short sighted as past claims that the structure of the atom could not be usefully addressed, or the atmosphere of Mars could not be usefully described.

Yes, limitations of observability and testability can be overcome through technology.

No doubt as time goes on we will develop a more piercing analysis of the history of the universe. I don't think either of us can say whether the Big Bang theory will survive such increased capabilities.

Faith, as an alternative, is useful only for keeping the masses gullible enough to buy into theocratic authoritarian power ponzi schemes. Setting aside allowing thieves, rapists, pedophiles, and murderers an opportunity to die with a clear conscience...that's about it.

The "masses" need no help or prompting to remain gullible or to buy into authoritarian power structures. Science won't change that.

 

[Shogun]

Ok guy that says trumping way too much. I don't know exactly how many times I or anyone else has to say this but I'm not saying religion proves anything that science can't. To me religion is a tradition of sorts. An outlet for people to turn to when they feel they need help spiritually. A concept everyone can't grasp (which is perfectly fine), but for those who can it helps emotionally in ways science cannot. You, obviously being not a very sympathetic person can't seem to understand that the purpose of religion is not to disprove anything but to help people. I myself am not a religious person but I have seen and appreciate what a lot of churches do for PEOPLE.
Sure there are radical extremist out there that press their ideals on other. But if you would broaden your narrow minded horizons a little and accept the fact that we are not all lucky enough to be as brilliant as you and some feel the need to turn to a religion for guidance. Im happy for you though that you have had such a wonderful life of enlightenment and joy that you don't need anything but your twisted morals and pseudo-intelligence to get you through the day. Everyone is not that lucky so back off. Or maybe is it that you are jealous that others have found a way to make them happy and help them cope with life and you have not been able to do so? hmm




WOW.. if that were any more passive-aggressive id have to assume that you got your frilly, lacy glove dirty while throwing it down like a foppish gauntlet!



yea, dude. Im JEALOUS. thats the ticket. I envy speaking to myself in some hope for the best prayer to a ghost that never was. You got me. You ARE a sleuth in training, aren't ya? A regular Dr. Holmes!


dogma isn't merely a matter of incense and peppermints, mr strawberry alarm clock. It doesn't play a role MERELY so that some can have spiritual support. I can show you news articles of thumpers throwing bibles at pagans who DARED to rent a hotel conference center. I can show you the STARK historic reality, from the inquisition to civil rights, of the role DOGMA has played in facilitating exclusion and persecution. If you want to try and spitshine that turd then so be it. Just don't cry foul when you discover how dirty your hands are and that they smell like shit.


otherwise, like I said, welcome to the forum.

 

[MsWikia]

even scientists who believe in god don't insist that god belongs in the science class when christians have nothing better to offer than adam and eve. And, again, I DEFY you to name one single circumstance where dogma has provided more of an understanding of our reality than science. I mean JUST ONE EXAMPLE. Can you do that? Can you suggest to me ONE circumstance where faith healed an amputee rather than the science that provided a fake limb? Anything?

You may not like my personality, which is A-OK with me, but you really don't have anything to offer outside of calling me an ass or you'd have smoked that bad puppy by now.


and, you can BELIEVE whatever the hell you want to believe.. be it a god on a chariot pulling the sun across the sky or some jewish ghost telling humans to "believe or else"... But, at the end of the day, it's the SCIENCE that keeps slamming out home runs this side of the age of enlightenment, instead of mythology infused dogma. Maybe it takes an ass to say what Copernicus never got the chance to.

Your belief in MAN explains a lot of your frustration and confusion. MAN will always let you down.

 

[manifold]

MAN will always let you down.

Hey, that's Ravi's line!

 

[Ravi]

Hey, that's Ravi's line!

Um, Mani, not man.

 

[manifold]

Um, Mani, not man.

You say that like there's a difference.

 

[MsWikia]

lol

 

[Nemo Securus]

Once again Shogun you take pieces of what i say and leave out important parts.

Sure there are radical extremist out there that press their ideals on others

I get that and those people are wrong.
But you act as if all people of faith are the same. THEY ARE NOT. And once again I will tell you I am not a religious person but I, unlike you, accept and respect other peoples opinions. A lot of people have been killed in the name of religion and that is a sad sad thing but if those people were true to their religions then they would not be performing some of the acts they do. So in a sense it is really the people not of faith (true faith) that are harming one another.

And hey by the way, Bill Nye, is not psychology a science? If you are so understanding of all that is science then you would understand psychologically why we have religions and I am willing to bet that your ancestors as mine and most others had some form of religion as well. Are you calling your own blood stupid?

 

[AllieBaba]

HA!


yea, NOW they do. they also believe in heliocentrism and gravity too. NOW, at least.


how long did it take to finally assimilate ANOTHER secular idea into your theology?

We're the ones who said he created everything in 7 days. You guys laughed. Heavens and earth took up something like 3 or 4 days. You guys said NO WAY! (heavens....earth....light.....etc.)

Kinda funny now to see the proof that it is so...and now you're still laughing as if that wasn't our theory all along.