Who created the...

[Shogun]

You are a retard, but we already knew that.

and you are a nutty cultist.. but we already knew that too.

 

[Shogun]

I know the words quite well my friend and once again I have to tell you because youre head is so clouded with stem cell research and cloning that you seem to forget.


I AM NOT A RELIGIOUS PERSON!!!!!

nothing to kill or die for, buddy. Who said that?

 

[jillian]

Was John Lennon... he was wrong about that one, though. There ARE things worth killing/dying over.

 

[Ravi]

Was John Lennon... he was wrong about that one, though. There ARE things worth killing/dying over.

He was imagining there was nothing to kill or die for. But that would actually be a little boring.

 

[Abelian Sea]

What does "faith in the Big Bang" mean? I ask because I have never met one of these people, unless you are talking about those who have a faith-based paradigm that they can't imagine others don't share--but they don't believe in the Big Bang anyway; faith-based or otherwise.

You've never met people who believe that the Big Bang actually happened? I have.

Some of them just hadn't thought of it that deeply. They seemed to be operating under a "Science sez it, so it must be so," assumption. I was like that as a kid. Dad told be about the Big Bang and I was all like "wow," and just sort of believed it by default for many years.

Others seemed to cling to it as part of their rejection of their family's faith. They saw it as the alternative to whatever story they were told growing up, so they embraced it with all the faith they felt they were supposed to have for the religious story, a sort of rebelous sacralige.

Some were just adamant about it, and considered those who weren't to be ignorant, throwbacks to a primitive and superstitious time. For them, science was the truth, the light, and the way, and they felt a condescending pity for those who refused to accept it.

All of them had made a leap of faith.

I mean, do you really believe, based on our instrument readings many eons after the fact, that

Billions of years ago, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny ball, which then exploded forth...

?

 

[Shogun]

Was John Lennon... he was wrong about that one, though. There ARE things worth killing/dying over.

oh I know.. suicide bombers and zionists agree on that one thing, at least!

 

[manifold]

oh I know.. suicide bombers and zionists agree on that one thing, at least!

I thought you supported the death penalty?

 

[jillian]

oh I know.. suicide bombers and zionists agree on that one thing, at least!

you're right shogie baby... it wasn't worth killing nazis. nope... shoulda let them finish the job, right? then you wouldn't have had to worry about it too much.

ijit.

 

[Shogun]

You've never met people who believe that the Big Bang actually happened? I have.

Some of them just hadn't thought of it that deeply. They seemed to be operating under a "Science sez it, so it must be so," assumption. I was like that as a kid. Dad told be about the Big Bang and I was all like "wow," and just sort of believed it by default for many years.

Others seemed to cling to it as part of their rejection of their family's faith. They saw it as the alternative to whatever story they were told growing up, so they embraced it with all the faith they felt they were supposed to have for the religious story, a sort of rebelous sacralige.

Some were just adamant about it, and considered those who weren't to be ignorant, throwbacks to a primitive and superstitious time. For them, science was the truth, the light, and the way, and they felt a condescending pity for those who refused to accept it.

All of them had made a leap of faith.

I mean, do you really believe, based on our instrument readings many eons after the fact, that

Billions of years ago, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny ball, which then exploded forth...

?

is that truly ANY nuttier than a jewish ghost snapping his fingers seven times? I mean, AT THE VERY LEAST the big bang is taken from physical evidence. What is genesis taken from?

 

[Shogun]

I thought you supported the death penalty?

i do.

apparently, your sarcasm button is turned off. Imagine using john lennon quotes at someone whose avatar doesn't match his message. It's easy if you try.


Is my allusion to suicide bombers and zionists really that evasive?

 

[José]

Originally posted by jillian
Was John Lennon... he was wrong about that one, though. There ARE things worth killing/dying over.

Are you sure you undestood what Lennon said?

He was talking about humans reaching adulthood as a SPECIES.

Call Lennon’s ideas unrealistic, utopian, kumbaya bullshit all you wish, but if there were no countries, religions, etc, etc, there would be less violence in the world and I can’t even begin to imagine how much more advanced science and space exploration/colonisation would be.

And only stupid people wouldn’t want our species to overcome national and religious tribalisms and achieve the “brotherhood of man” he described.

 

[Shogun]

you're right shogie baby... it wasn't worth killing nazis. nope... shoulda let them finish the job, right? then you wouldn't have had to worry about it too much.

ijit.

well, I guess you could ask the ghosts of some DRESDEN CIVILIANS that question but, hey, a dead jew trumps everything else so...

too bad THOSE dirty fucking goyim don't hold as lofty a place in history as the chosen.. I mean, hell.. CLEARLY jews were the only people who suffered from WW2!

 

[manifold]

i do.

apparently, your sarcasm button is turned off. Imagine using john lennon quotes at someone whose avatar doesn't match his message. It's easy if you try.


Is my allusion to suicide bombers and zionists really that evasive?

My bad.


See folks, this is what happens when you butt in mid-conversation.


<slinks away quietly>

 

[Abelian Sea]

is that truly ANY nuttier than a jewish ghost snapping his fingers seven times?

No, I don't think it is.

But saying, "hey, it's not as crazy as X," doesn't make it sound any more true to me.

 

[LOki]

You've never met people who believe that the Big Bang actually happened? I have.

I have, but their believing the Big Bang actually happened as the result of the evidence not faith, so I don't get your religion thrust.

Some of them just hadn't thought of it that deeply. They seemed to be operating under a "Science sez it, so it must be so," assumption. I was like that as a kid. Dad told be about the Big Bang and I was all like "wow," and just sort of believed it by default for many years.

You seem to percive "science" to be some keebleresque elf in a lab coat with a golden frisbee floating over his head, making "scientific" proclamations that others must believe--just the way religion works.

I have a news bulletin for you fellah: Your witch-doctor paradigm DOES NOT apply.

Others seemed to cling to it as part of their rejection of their family's faith. They saw it as the alternative to whatever story they were told growing up, so they embraced it with all the faith they felt they were supposed to have for the religious story, a sort of rebelous sacralige.

I suppose it must look this way to anyone who can't fathom the distinction between beliefs based in evidence, and beliefs based in faith.

Some were just adamant about it, and considered those who weren't to be ignorant, throwbacks to a primitive and superstitious time.

"Primitive" is certainly inappropriate, but "ignorant" isn't terribly unjustifable, and "superstitious" is right on the mark.

I give them a 7.5.

For them, science was the truth, the light, and the way, and they felt a condescending pity for those who refused to accept it.

All of them had made a leap of faith.

Nope. They just decided that their understanding is better served when supported by evidence, rather than by their capaicity to deny evidence.

I mean, do you really believe, based on our instrument readings many eons after the fact, that

Billions of years ago, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny ball, which then exploded forth...

?

The evidence apprears to indicate something pretty much like that.

Do you believe that an all powerful, all knowing, invisible white father, who lives in the sky, (and is bad with money) created the universe in six days, out of nothing, a few thousand years ago, and made it appear to have begun billions of years ago from some manner of singularity?

 

[Shogun]

No, I don't think it is.

But saying, "hey, it's not as crazy as X," doesn't make it sound any more true to me.

yet THIS is where the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE comes into play. I don't validate the bang because genesis is nutty as hell but, rather, BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE.

 

[Abelian Sea]

I have, but their believing the Big Bang actually happened as the result of the evidence not faith, so I don't get your religion thrust.

There is nowhere near enough evidence to make believing the Big Bang not require faith.

It doesn't require as much faith as say, believing that the universe was constructed by magical dwarves that spontenously popped into existence one day, but it certainly does take a leap of faith.

You speak almost as though the Big Bang has been proven. It has not been. Believing it takes faith.

You seem to percive "science" to be some keebleresque elf in a lab coat with a golden frisbee floating over his head, making "scientific" proclamations that others must believe--just the way religion works.

That is not how I percieve it. That is how I have seen others treat it.

I have a news bulletin for you fellah: Your witch-doctor paradigm DOES NOT apply.

It shouldn't. For some people, it does.

They hear that X is the leading scientific theory, and they believe that X is true, even if the evidence that supports X is less than thoroughly conclusive. Believing unproven propositions involves faith, even if there is some evidence for those conclusions.

IThe evidence apprears to indicate something pretty much like that.

I've said as much, but that isn't what I asked. I asked if you really believe that it happened.

There is certainly evidence for it. There is certainly not enough evidence to make skepticism of it unwarranted.

Do you believe that an all powerful, all knowing, invisible white father, who lives in the sky, (and is bad with money) created the universe in six days, out of nothing, a few thousand years ago, and made it appear to have begun billions of years ago from some manner of singularity?

No, I do not. I think that sounds silly.

yet THIS is where the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE comes into play. I don't validate the bang because genesis is nutty as hell but, rather, BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE.

What do you mean by "validate?"

If you mean that, based on the evidence, it's a sound scientific theory, then I agree with you.

If you mean that, based on the evidence, we can know without any faith that it happened, then I disagree with you.

 

[MsWikia]

You know what's funny. People don't realize that we take a "leap of faith" every single day. You have faith and trust in so many man made inventions and ideas, that this invention is really going to do what it says it will or that some of the scientific experiments really happened.

So why not take another leap of faith in the belief of a higher being?

 

[LOki]

There is nowhere near enough evidence to make believing the Big Bang not require faith.

Untrue. Having your belief supported by evidence, any amount of evidence, is inconsitent with faith.

It doesn't require as much faith as say, believing that the universe was constructed by magical dwarves that spontenously popped into existence one day, but it certainly does take a leap of faith.

It requires no leap of faith what-so-ever.

You speak almost as though the Big Bang has been proven.

No. I speak as if there is no better evidence-based explaination for what we observe than the big bang.

It has not been.

I understand that it does not meet your standard for being proven...I suspect this is a metaphysical hurdle for you.

Believing it takes faith.

Only if you've not been exposed to any of the evidence.

That is not how I percieve it. That is how I have seen others treat it.

Me too...primarily those who attack science as a competing religion; those who thin speaking the truth about reality is the same thing as making prescise and accurate assertion about reality.

It shouldn't. For some people, it does.

They hear that X is the leading scientific theory, and they believe that X is true, even if the evidence that supports X is less than thoroughly conclusive. Believing unproven propositions involves faith, even if there is some evidence for those conclusions.

No. Believing propositions without ANY evidence or logical proof for those conclusions is faith; believing propositions in spite of contrary evidence requires faith.

I've said as much, but that isn't what I asked. I asked if you really believe that it happened.

Based on the evidence, yes.

There is certainly evidence for it. There is certainly not enough evidence to make skepticism of it unwarranted.

Only the faithful suspend skepticism.

No, I do not. I think that sounds silly.

It's good that that's out of the way then.