Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that in 2014 in the uk a 15 year old has been convinced that evolution is an atheist conspiracy, the creation myth is fact , and homosexuals are sad people , corrupted by evil and need to stop and be saved ? Or maybe I'm wrong and it's healthy to install such dogmatic preferences and dismiss thousands of years of methodically collected data and sexual liberation ? "I think evolution theory will eventually turn out to be wrong. As for your 'methodically collected data'...proper trustworthy data has really only been collected for a few decades. Much stuff before that was collected with so little rigor that it is highly untrustworthy...and the stuff collected before that is simply rumour and speculation. Broadly speaking evolution theory and creationism add up to exactly the same thing...they both rely upon the universe creating things. Apart from all that I would agree that homosexuals are not sad people....so at least in that regard I'd agree   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that in 2014 in the uk a 15 year old has been convinced that evolution is an atheist conspiracy, the creation myth is fact , and homosexuals are sad people , corrupted by evil and need to stop and be saved ? Or maybe I'm wrong and it's healthy to install such dogmatic preferences and dismiss thousands of years of methodically collected data and sexual liberation ? "People are indoctrinated from birth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that in 2014 in the uk a 15 year old has been convinced that evolution is an atheist conspiracy, the creation myth is fact , and homosexuals are sad people , corrupted by evil and need to stop and be saved ? Or maybe I'm wrong and it's healthy to install such dogmatic preferences and dismiss thousands of years of methodically collected data and sexual liberation ? "Was this a news story - have you got a link? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Parents grand parents great grand parents and the preacher x" Is it really that important for people only to believe in evolution? What is the harm in someone believing in creationism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that in 2014 in the uk a 15 year old has been convinced that evolution is an atheist conspiracy, the creation myth is fact , and homosexuals are sad people , corrupted by evil and need to stop and be saved ? Or maybe I'm wrong and it's healthy to install such dogmatic preferences and dismiss thousands of years of methodically collected data and sexual liberation ?
I think evolution theory will eventually turn out to be wrong. As for your 'methodically collected data'...proper trustworthy data has really only been collected for a few decades. Much stuff before that was collected with so little rigor that it is highly untrustworthy...and the stuff collected before that is simply rumour and speculation.
Broadly speaking evolution theory and creationism add up to exactly the same thing...they both rely upon the universe creating things.
Apart from all that I would agree that homosexuals are not sad people....so at least in that regard I'd agree "Without going into huge detail .evolution is a fact x now it's a huge subject with areas still subject to theories. Mrsa = evolutionary fact. I think you will find Victoria cataloguing was very methodical . By dismissing evolution . Most geology fact is dismissed , much physics fact is dismissed , the reverse polarisation of the planet is dismissed . Radiation half life fact dismissed as make believe . Chalk not acknowledged as Lil sea creatures . The millions of species collected dicected and catalogued dismissed , dinosaurs were dismissed as fiction and forgeries , genetics dismissed x Evolution the fact that living stuff can and does change slowly over time due to numerous factors one being a changing natural environment has an overwhelming and fascinating array of cross references to validate it as fact . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without going into huge detail .evolution is a fact" I appreciate the broad range of indicators you point to in your msg but I still believe that ultimately evolution theory will prove to have been pseudo-science. That doesn't mean I believe in creationism. As I said in my msg, I think evolution theory and creationism are basically the same thing anyway. I just think that all this evidence that's being compiled to try and fill a square hole will suddenly be looked at from a different angle one day and we'll realise that it fits a round hole much better. A good example of a move in this direction is that more and more scientists are agreeing that the old model of evolution happening gradually over millions of years is simply wrong. Instead we now know that evolutionary spurts occurred at many points along the way, helping species to separate from each other within as little as 100 years at times. This and other curiosities leads me to believe we're putting too much weight upon trying to prove what an old 19th century scientist hypothesised and not letting the evidence lead us to what actually happened  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All religion is fiction, religion does not exist in nature; people invented gods and other supernatural beings to explain things they were unable to understand and then the self styled priests made up the rules to get power and to scare people into toeing the line. There are hundreds of creation myths some more ridiculous than others but the Christian one which most people know is just dumb, you do need to be particularly thick to believe that one. And for all those dimwits who do believe the bible stories, consider - Adam and Eve, have children, the next generation comes from .. the incestuous relationships of Adam and Eve's children, so obviously incest is fine if you believe in god. And finally; God is supposedly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, if that is so he wouldn't need a bunch of megalomaniacs on planet earth to deal with the naughty people. If god really existed all the religious leaders and zealots would have been eradicated for their arrogance, the mere existence of religion demonstrates the absence of a god. Get rid of religion from this planet and you get rid of at least half the conflicts"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without going into huge detail .evolution is a fact I appreciate the broad range of indicators you point to in your msg but I still believe that ultimately evolution theory will prove to have been pseudo-science. That doesn't mean I believe in creationism. As I said in my msg, I think evolution theory and creationism are basically the same thing anyway. I just think that all this evidence that's being compiled to try and fill a square hole will suddenly be looked at from a different angle one day and we'll realise that it fits a round hole much better. A good example of a move in this direction is that more and more scientists are agreeing that the old model of evolution happening gradually over millions of years is simply wrong. Instead we now know that evolutionary spurts occurred at many points along the way, helping species to separate from each other within as little as 100 years at times. This and other curiosities leads me to believe we're putting too much weight upon trying to prove what an old 19th century scientist hypothesised and not letting the evidence lead us to what actually happened "Hmmm no disrespect but I think that is contradictory nonsense x I respect the open mind and we humans have still a lot to learn but in this case we are not discussing flat earth theory Evolution and creation are non compatible. Creation tells us all humans derive from Noah and all humans and life on this planet are unchanged since a divine hand designed and built us Evolution is stuff started simple and because of the mechanics of dna simple life can change and adapt .that's it that's the fact that is beyond theory and all humans can observe and understand the vast array of data to confirm . Now regarding the precise idiosyncrasies regarding the multitude of processes and mechanisms that combine to give us evolution that's a work in perpetual flux. Your example seems like Daily mail sound bite science ? It is understood evolutionary process can happen at all speeds and stand still . I cite crocodiles and sharks as one example and Mrsa and fruit flies as another A modification or addition does not discredit evolution only enhance the resolution x A discovery that lead to quad core processor does not debunk the knowledge used to make turings computer x I'm discussing a potentially bright young man who thinks 7500 years ago a god put all life on earth and it has remained that way . And that hiv was made by god as vengeance upon gay people xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hmmm no disrespect but I think that is contradictory nonsense x" Lol I always know to prepare for the worst when someone prefaces it with "no disrespect but"
My understanding is that evolution has only been observed in simple organisms. I agree that this aspect of the science is very solid. Where it starts to fall apart is when people start making claims about complex organisms, stating with authority that shrew's evolved from whales i.e. the 'story of evolution'. It's this story which imo is pseudo-science.
I don't know whether I can really be bothered to outline why I think evolution theory is just creationism by a different name...some theories take a lot of writing and foot notes to back them up...but I'm happy to just say that's how I feel and leave it at that All I would say is that it involves following the word 'adaptation' back down the rabbit hole and finding it ultimately leads right back to God
I would say that it is not "understood evolutionary process can happen at all speeds and stand still". Indeed the shark and those others who have not evolved whilst everything around them was evolving remain a thorn in the side of evolution theory. The current suggestion is that they are perfectly evolved to suit their environment and that's why they didn't change. The only trouble is that we're now learning that their environment was changing all the time...so that kinda derails that argument.
I'm not saying I'm a professional palaeontologist by any means... but I feel there are enough inconsistencies in the 'story of evolution', i.e. the complex organisms, to give me a gut vibe that it'll eventually be proven to have been wrong
That's my opinion. It's well informed in it's own way. But it's just different. I'm allowed that indulgence aren't I? Or would you like us all to think the same way as you? ...15 year old kids and all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All religion is fiction, religion does not exist in nature; people invented gods and other supernatural beings to explain things they were unable to understand and then the self styled priests made up the rules to get power and to scare people into toeing the line. There are hundreds of creation myths some more ridiculous than others but the Christian one which most people know is just dumb, you do need to be particularly thick to believe that one. And for all those dimwits who do believe the bible stories, consider - Adam and Eve, have children, the next generation comes from .. the incestuous relationships of Adam and Eve's children, so obviously incest is fine if you believe in god. And finally; God is supposedly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, if that is so he wouldn't need a bunch of megalomaniacs on planet earth to deal with the naughty people. If god really existed all the religious leaders and zealots would have been eradicated for their arrogance, the mere existence of religion demonstrates the absence of a god. Get rid of religion from this planet and you get rid of at least half the conflicts" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do." How about 3 poofs and a piano.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I asked for a 12 inch dick and you brought me a pianist !" Oh c'mon Gwanny......ya gotta admit a piano is a bit like a large organ.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have zero idea what this god word you ask me to illustrate cannot exist is ? Could you define said god word ? " You're a bit pompous aren't you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All religion is fiction, religion does not exist in nature; people invented gods and other supernatural beings to explain things they were unable to understand and then the self styled priests made up the rules to get power and to scare people into toeing the line. There are hundreds of creation myths some more ridiculous than others but the Christian one which most people know is just dumb, you do need to be particularly thick to believe that one. And for all those dimwits who do believe the bible stories, consider - Adam and Eve, have children, the next generation comes from .. the incestuous relationships of Adam and Eve's children, so obviously incest is fine if you believe in god. And finally; God is supposedly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, if that is so he wouldn't need a bunch of megalomaniacs on planet earth to deal with the naughty people. If god really existed all the religious leaders and zealots would have been eradicated for their arrogance, the mere existence of religion demonstrates the absence of a god. Get rid of religion from this planet and you get rid of at least half the conflicts" I somewhat agree with what you're saying, but I find the way this is worded slightly offensive to read. You still have to respect that others ARE religious. This is a bit of a harsh way to put the point across, when it can be done in a much more tactful manner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
atheist yes pompous noo lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do." That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nope don't think so atheist yes pompous noo lol"Your attitude suggests otherwise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. " My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do." I haven't heard him for a while.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. " Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale "It can be possible in some cases if the correct parameters and definitions are given xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All religion is fiction, religion does not exist in nature; people invented gods and other supernatural beings to explain things they were unable to understand and then the self styled priests made up the rules to get power and to scare people into toeing the line. There are hundreds of creation myths some more ridiculous than others but the Christian one which most people know is just dumb, you do need to be particularly thick to believe that one. And for all those dimwits who do believe the bible stories, consider - Adam and Eve, have children, the next generation comes from .. the incestuous relationships of Adam and Eve's children, so obviously incest is fine if you believe in god. And finally; God is supposedly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, if that is so he wouldn't need a bunch of megalomaniacs on planet earth to deal with the naughty people. If god really existed all the religious leaders and zealots would have been eradicated for their arrogance, the mere existence of religion demonstrates the absence of a god. Get rid of religion from this planet and you get rid of at least half the conflicts" Spot on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale "Of course you can prove something doesn't exist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find it quite amusing that atheists spend so much time talking about God.... "SOME atheists | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist. "Prove that no unicorns exist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?"Now your being silly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?
Now your being silly. "Ok, so you admit that it isn't possible to prove that unicorns don't exist. Exactly the same goes for God. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?
Now your being silly.
Ok, so you admit that it isn't possible to prove that unicorns don't exist.
Exactly the same goes for God."Ok so now your putting words in my mouth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?
Now your being silly.
Ok, so you admit that it isn't possible to prove that unicorns don't exist.
Exactly the same goes for God.
Ok so now your putting words in my mouth.
"Well, try engaging with the argument rather than saying 'you're being silly'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist. "Russell's teapot explains why the burden of proof is on the person making a scientifically unfalsifiable claim, i.e. god | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?
Now your being silly.
Ok, so you admit that it isn't possible to prove that unicorns don't exist.
Exactly the same goes for God.
Ok so now your putting words in my mouth.
Well, try engaging with the argument rather than saying 'you're being silly'."But your were being silly. You started by saying you can't prove a negative , then changed the parameters of what you meant, them of all things you asked to me prove unicorns don't exist. When I stated of course you can prove things don't exist you could have picked anything. A ladder to the moon doesn't exist. I can't prove it in this thread but I can assure you it doesn't. Yes now I'm being silly, but I didn't start it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?
Now your being silly.
Ok, so you admit that it isn't possible to prove that unicorns don't exist.
Exactly the same goes for God.
Ok so now your putting words in my mouth.
Well, try engaging with the argument rather than saying 'you're being silly'.
But your were being silly. You started by saying you can't prove a negative , then changed the parameters of what you meant, them of all things you asked to me prove unicorns don't exist.
When I stated of course you can prove things don't exist you could have picked anything.
A ladder to the moon doesn't exist. I can't prove it in this thread but I can assure you it doesn't.
Yes now I'm being silly, but I didn't start it. "How are you going to prove that a ladder to the moon doesn't exist? You can't. Assuring me that there isn't one isn't proof. This isn't silliness, it's getting to the point of why you can't disprove god. (I didn't change parameters, you just didn't understand what I was talking about) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?
Now your being silly.
Ok, so you admit that it isn't possible to prove that unicorns don't exist.
Exactly the same goes for God.
Ok so now your putting words in my mouth.
Well, try engaging with the argument rather than saying 'you're being silly'.
But your were being silly. You started by saying you can't prove a negative , then changed the parameters of what you meant, them of all things you asked to me prove unicorns don't exist.
When I stated of course you can prove things don't exist you could have picked anything.
A ladder to the moon doesn't exist. I can't prove it in this thread but I can assure you it doesn't.
Yes now I'm being silly, but I didn't start it.
How are you going to prove that a ladder to the moon doesn't exist? You can't. Assuring me that there isn't one isn't proof.
This isn't silliness, it's getting to the point of why you can't disprove god.
(I didn't change parameters, you just didn't understand what I was talking about)"I still don't know what your talking about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?
Now your being silly.
Ok, so you admit that it isn't possible to prove that unicorns don't exist.
Exactly the same goes for God.
Ok so now your putting words in my mouth.
Well, try engaging with the argument rather than saying 'you're being silly'.
But your were being silly. You started by saying you can't prove a negative , then changed the parameters of what you meant, them of all things you asked to me prove unicorns don't exist.
When I stated of course you can prove things don't exist you could have picked anything.
A ladder to the moon doesn't exist. I can't prove it in this thread but I can assure you it doesn't.
Yes now I'm being silly, but I didn't start it.
How are you going to prove that a ladder to the moon doesn't exist? You can't. Assuring me that there isn't one isn't proof.
This isn't silliness, it's getting to the point of why you can't disprove god.
(I didn't change parameters, you just didn't understand what I was talking about)
I still don't know what your talking about.
"Yes, I can see that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative, you have to prove the truth of an idea. My bank account is in the negative. I got a statement to prove this. Was that a joke? Hard to tell on here. In case you're being serious, we're talking about the positive or negative existence of something (i.e. does it or doesn't it), not whether something can be below 0 on a scale
Of course you can prove something doesn't exist.
Prove that no unicorns exist?
Now your being silly.
Ok, so you admit that it isn't possible to prove that unicorns don't exist.
Exactly the same goes for God.
Ok so now your putting words in my mouth.
Well, try engaging with the argument rather than saying 'you're being silly'.
But your were being silly. You started by saying you can't prove a negative , then changed the parameters of what you meant, them of all things you asked to me prove unicorns don't exist.
When I stated of course you can prove things don't exist you could have picked anything.
A ladder to the moon doesn't exist. I can't prove it in this thread but I can assure you it doesn't.
Yes now I'm being silly, but I didn't start it.
How are you going to prove that a ladder to the moon doesn't exist? You can't. Assuring me that there isn't one isn't proof.
This isn't silliness, it's getting to the point of why you can't disprove god.
(I didn't change parameters, you just didn't understand what I was talking about)"Yes .ladder to the moon x now let's see . Although we cannot disprove all ladder senareo s we can reduce them and by regarding what's then beyond our knowledge we can make a judgment of rational plausibility x so can humans see the ladder ? Does it reflect emf ? Can a human climb it ? If any of these are false can it be a ladder ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Wayyyyy back...everything come from nothing. Even now...our galaxies are shaped by super massive black holes which are driven themselves by something which will forever remain unknown to us. We are surrounded by a huge creative force that is summoning all things into being out of nothingness. You can call that 'the unknown'...but strangely enough it's actually a bit more accurate to call it God | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do." Here are 3 proofs that a god DOES exist:- 1. murder 2. slavery 3. child abuse These 3 proofs show that not only does a god exist, but he/she's a nasty fucker who should not be worshipped. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. Here are 3 proofs that a god DOES exist:- 1. murder 2. slavery 3. child abuse These 3 proofs show that not only does a god exist, but he/she's a nasty fucker who should not be worshipped." If they're proof of anything surely those things are proof of the devil's existence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist as you would need to prove you had looked everywhere for it before you could state that with certainty and the universe is simply too big for us to ever have such knowledge. Equally if something doesn't exist in our corner of the universe but exists somewhere else it is also impossible for us to prove it exists. Thankfully as God, by definition, is the creator of all things, there is abundant proof everywhere of God's existence (atheists may need to ponder on that one for a bit before they realise it is an accurate logical statement). Some may wish to swap the word God for the word 'Unknown'...but they pretty much amount to the same thing and science, in that sense, is in agreement
Wayyyyy back...everything come from nothing. Even now...our galaxies are shaped by super massive black holes which are driven themselves by something which will forever remain unknown to us. We are surrounded by a huge creative force that is summoning all things into being out of nothingness. You can call that 'the unknown'...but strangely enough it's actually a bit more accurate to call it God "To be honest this is all just pretty much 'god of the gaps'. Something that science definitely isn't in agreement with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be honest this is all just pretty much 'god of the gaps'. Something that science definitely isn't in agreement with." Nope this is not god of the gaps. Science relies heavily upon a creative event. They call it the big bang. For them this big bang is responsible for the creation of all things. So there is a broad agreement that there was a creator. Other people call it God...you might call it big bang...but no one imagines that everything came out of nothing without a cause of some kind. Belief in a causative event is common sense backed up by evidence. If someone chooses to worship this event and call it God that's their own business imo. And, as I said previously, I'd suggest they'd be more accurate for doing so | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. Here are 3 proofs that a god DOES exist:- 1. murder 2. slavery 3. child abuse These 3 proofs show that not only does a god exist, but he/she's a nasty fucker who should not be worshipped. If they're proof of anything surely those things are proof of the devil's existence." The devil was brought to you by the same production company that brought you god. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give me three proofs that God does not exist. Oh okay just one will do. Here are 3 proofs that a god DOES exist:- 1. murder 2. slavery 3. child abuse These 3 proofs show that not only does a god exist, but he/she's a nasty fucker who should not be worshipped. If they're proof of anything surely those things are proof of the devil's existence. The devil was brought to you by the same production company that brought you god." I'm pretty sure of my personal god and she comes from within me, there is no devil. Those three things aren't proof of anything spiritual to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To be honest this is all just pretty much 'god of the gaps'. Something that science definitely isn't in agreement with. Nope this is not god of the gaps. Science relies heavily upon a creative event. They call it the big bang. For them this big bang is responsible for the creation of all things. So there is a broad agreement that there was a creator. Other people call it God...you might call it big bang...but no one imagines that everything came out of nothing without a cause of some kind. Belief in a causative event is common sense backed up by evidence. If someone chooses to worship this event and call it God that's their own business imo. And, as I said previously, I'd suggest they'd be more accurate for doing so "No. Calling an event god is to render the word meaningless. Even a deist wouldn't dillute the meaning of god to this level. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. Calling an event god is to render the word meaningless. Even a deist wouldn't dillute the meaning of god to this level." Not at all. The word God has three meanings. Firstly someone's God is the thing they worship most in their life. This enables us to say the phrase "his God is money". Secondly it refers to a person or being. Thirdly it refers to a source of all things...the Great Creator from which we all come. Some religions believe this source is energy...others think it is a being of some sort. Some religions don't even bother themselves with a creator at all and are more happy to worship the sun as their God or the Earth. The word God can be used in all these ways and still retain deep and profound meaning to those who use it. If a scientist chooses to worship the big bang and call it their God then that is not without meaning. They are worshiping the source of all things, as they see it, and so this is deeply meaningful. If an environmentalist chooses to worship the Earth and call that their God then that is also profoundly meaningful and may, in some sense, approximate a religious perspective somewhat similar to the Native American Indians. I suspect you, and others on this thread, are trying to use the word God in an extremely limited Christian way...referring to a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud. This God is easy to deconstruct because it's the most ridiculous of them all. The other meanings of the word God are far more convincing and meaningful and therefore get overlooked by most atheists...who are essentially simply anti-Christians | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. Calling an event god is to render the word meaningless. Even a deist wouldn't dillute the meaning of god to this level. Not at all. The word God has three meanings. Firstly someone's God is the thing they worship most in their life. This enables us to say the phrase "his God is money". Secondly it refers to a person or being. Thirdly it refers to a source of all things...the Great Creator from which we all come. Some religions believe this source is energy...others think it is a being of some sort. Some religions don't even bother themselves with a creator at all and are more happy to worship the sun as their God or the Earth. The word God can be used in all these ways and still retain deep and profound meaning to those who use it. If a scientist chooses to worship the big bang and call it their God then that is not without meaning. They are worshiping the source of all things, as they see it, and so this is deeply meaningful. If an environmentalist chooses to worship the Earth and call that their God then that is also profoundly meaningful and may, in some sense, approximate a religious perspective somewhat similar to the Native American Indians. I suspect you, and others on this thread, are trying to use the word God in an extremely limited Christian way...referring to a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud. This God is easy to deconstruct because it's the most ridiculous of them all. The other meanings of the word God are far more convincing and meaningful and therefore get overlooked by most atheists...who are essentially simply anti-Christians "As suspected and perfectly illustrated above .If you define god as Absolutely anything conceivable the question of its existence becomes a nonsense. As illustrated if you start narrowing down your divine definition ie white beard ,then you can be more objective | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As suspected and perfectly illustrated above .If you define god as Absolutely anything conceivable the question of its existence becomes a nonsense. As illustrated if you start narrowing down your divine definition ie white beard ,then you can be more objective " If you wish to waste your time trying to dispel a fictitious God then be my guest. I just thought you were interested in actual God. Actual God created all things, unlike said man with beard, actual God exists throughout the universe, unlike said man with beard, actual God existed before all things and will persist after all things, unlike said man with beard. Apologies...you go ahead and carry on dispelling your own fictitious god by all means. I just think it's a bit of an egomanic and pointless task that's all. Surely it'd be much more interesting to try and dispel the actual real God?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that in 2014 in the uk a 15 year old has been convinced that evolution is an atheist conspiracy, the creation myth is fact , and homosexuals are sad people ," Don't visit America..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apologies...you go ahead and carry on dispelling your own fictitious god by all means. I just think it's a bit of an egomanic and pointless task that's all. Surely it'd be much more interesting to try and dispel the actual real God? "But that is YOUR personal version of god, so only you can dispel it by no longer believing in it. Nothing to do with the rest of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have zero idea what this god word you ask me to illustrate cannot exist is ? Could you define said god word ? " Since we're talking semantics, she asked for proof God does not exist, not that he cannot exist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread has been the closest I have actually come to banging my head repeatedly on the desk. Theory is not the same as fact. Hypothesis is not the same as theory. Faith requires a leap therof. " Hypothesis requires a theory to quantify it and give something to test, fact is established once the theory is tested often many decades of work later, the process of which often generates many more hypothesis creating more work along the same cycle. Faith is just some bloke said down the pub... OK then that will do, your round, simples
The Earth is flat, and we only think it's round because dragons catch those that fall off and put them back someplace else... mines a voddy and tonic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have zero idea what this god word you ask me to illustrate cannot exist is ? Could you define said god word ? Since we're talking semantics, she asked for proof God does not exist, not that he cannot exist." Except of course, the burden of proof lies with those who make the assertion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I find it quite amusing that atheists spend so much time talking about God....
SOME atheists "True dat.
I know what I think. I know I don't know enough to be sure. I'll change my mind about what I think if something convinces me sufficiently to do so.
I don't care what anyone else thinks as long as they aren't using it as an excuse to harm others.
The End. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread has been the closest I have actually come to banging my head repeatedly on the desk. Theory is not the same as fact. Hypothesis is not the same as theory. Faith requires a leap therof. Hypothesis requires a theory to quantify it and give something to test, fact is established once the theory is tested often many decades of work later, the process of which often generates many more hypothesis creating more work along the same cycle. Faith is just some bloke said down the pub... OK then that will do, your round, simples
The Earth is flat, and we only think it's round because dragons catch those that fall off and put them back someplace else... mines a voddy and tonic."Hypotheses are testable suppositions, the results therof can be amalgamated into Theorem. What the fuck is a "scientific fact"? Whilst I agree that evolution is demonstrable in species with a short generation time, science is dynamic which makes it the opposite of faith, which is monolithic. Ergo: all the evidence points to the fact that evolution does occur. Surprisingly, work has been carried out in the field of evolutionary biology since Darwin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have zero idea what this god word you ask me to illustrate cannot exist is ? Could you define said god word ? Since we're talking semantics, she asked for proof God does not exist, not that he cannot exist. Except of course, the burden of proof lies with those who make the assertion. " That's irrelevant. She didn't ask what he thinks she asked. Whether or not he can or should, or she can or should, prove anything is not the point. I'm merely commenting on the difference between whether something CAN be the case and whether it IS the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder if my dog believes in a god, does anything other than a human perpetuate the myth of a god? Fekk my brain is boggling like it did through all those philosophy lectures ..... "My cats think I am God and get very narked when I refuse to turn off the rain. I can operate cat food sachets and doors so I must be able to control the weather too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I will keep off God, " If God sends a first message that is funny and interesting, clearly shows knowledge of your profile and common interests, plus god has a great profile and everything... would you still block and delete, ignore or send a "sorry not my type" reply  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My cats think I am God and get very narked when I refuse to turn off the rain. I can operate cat food sachets and doors so I must be able to control the weather too." My cat insists on checking the front door too and really can't believe that I am so evil I made it rain at both sides of the house...  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread has been the closest I have actually come to banging my head repeatedly on the desk. Theory is not the same as fact. Hypothesis is not the same as theory. Faith requires a leap therof." I hope I've been part of that...I'd like to think I've been doing my job properly
I think what's going on here is that a lot of atheists enjoy putting up a straw man argument. They devise some ridiculous Victorian vision of what God is and then they pull it apart. It may come as a surprise to discover that most religious people, even the majority of Christians, no longer believe in that old idea of God the watchmaker. Most believe in something living, a living presence, an energy perhaps...a creative force bringing the universe into being. Therefore almost all of the comments arguing against God that I've read on this thread are about 100 years out of date....or just aimed at old fuddy duddy Christians who are also about 100 years out of date lol
You are quite right. Science deals in theories...not facts. When something is 99% probable most people are happy to call it a fact...but what looked like 99% probable one day can often turn out to look 99% improbable the next | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't see why kids can't be taught about all beliefs and allowed to make up their own minds. Teach evolution and creationism and the beliefs of all major religions. Explain the science of the theory of evolution but stress we only know so much and don't anything like a complete understanding. Teach religion, a range of religions, making it clear that some believe and some don't. Explain both sides. Give children the options and let them work it out for themselves. Teaching just evolution is as wrong as teaching just creationism." They are | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"slartibartfast is more believable than creationism. " Slartibartfast IS creationism... As VV said above there are many aspects of life where science is proven fact, boiling point of water along with many exceptions has I think been proven and demonstrated quite sufficiently. Earth orbiting the Sun seems to be pretty solid theory that we don't really need to spend much more time on. What the sun orbits is an unanswered question so plenty of scope for theories there, including a potential source of energy and mass that pre-dates the big bang that it is speculated may have caused the universe we inhabit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"slartibartfast is more believable than creationism. Slartibartfast IS creationism... As VV said above there are many aspects of life where science is proven fact, boiling point of water along with many exceptions has I think been proven and demonstrated quite sufficiently. Earth orbiting the Sun seems to be pretty solid theory that we don't really need to spend much more time on. What the sun orbits is an unanswered question so plenty of scope for theories there, including a potential source of energy and mass that pre-dates the big bang that it is speculated may have caused the universe we inhabit." No, no, NO. Science does not have "proven facts". What it has is theories with a weight of evidence behind them. They are accepted as fact until they can be disproved - this is why Science is dynamic, and is changing constantly. That these theories are constantly tested is what gives science its rigour and credibility. Other hypotheses can be suggested, but, as I have said, we know where the burden of proof lies. For example; one could assert that evolution does not happen, but the burden of proof would be with the one making the assertion. I would expect research that had been through the peer review process, published in respected journals to back this claim up. The fact is, there is no scientific evidence to support creationist theory, it is part of a faith, and all faith requires that you suspend disbelief. Whilst unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters may be slightly facetious, they have just as much evidence of their existence as a god or gods. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, no, NO. Science does not have "proven facts". " So you are saying that it is not a proven fact that water boils when heated? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. " Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, no, NO. Science does not have "proven facts". So you are saying that it is not a proven fact that water boils when heated? " Or gravity, I can't see it but there is is making apples fall out of the tree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, no, NO. Science does not have "proven facts". So you are saying that it is not a proven fact that water boils when heated? " What are you taking about? Water does not always boil when its heated. Water does not always boil at 100C Even if it did, that it does is something with a lot of evidence behind it and no evidence contrary to it. Nothing in Science is infallable. Infalability is for religions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. " Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, no, NO. Science does not have "proven facts". So you are saying that it is not a proven fact that water boils when heated? Or gravity, I can't see it but there is is making apples fall out of the tree." No it isn't - it is what causes the apples to fall to earth when something else causes the apples bond with the tree to break. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. " No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, no, NO. Science does not have "proven facts". So you are saying that it is not a proven fact that water boils when heated? Or gravity, I can't see it but there is is making apples fall out of the tree. No it isn't - it is what causes the apples to fall to earth when something else causes the apples bond with the tree to break. " Ok! I'm sure you knew what I meant though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. " Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious " I have to say that I agree with that Ash. That's a first spiritually or scientifically | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious I have to say that I agree with that Ash. That's a first spiritually or scientifically "Woop woop | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious " would agree.. maybe just different types of comfort blankets..? ps. other types of comfort blankets are equally available and also as valid to individuals.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, no, NO. Science does not have "proven facts". So you are saying that it is not a proven fact that water boils when heated? What are you taking about? Water does not always boil when its heated. Water does not always boil at 100C " I never mentioned 100C, however H2O commonly referred to as water always boils at 100C at normal atmospheric pressure, hence the reason we have 100C or in fact all the degrees of C from ice to steam. Plenty of chemistry and biology and a hell of a lot of physics is proven fact but only when all ingredients are in place and several of those ingredients relate to physical location. The theoretical side where proof is probably never going to be absolute generally relates to time and location limitations, and in that aspect you are correct we will never establish absolute fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious " Who said they couldn't? I was just pointing out that one is evidence based and the other requires by its very nature that you suspend your disbelief. As for so called 'spirituality', I find that the awe and wonder of what exists and how it came to be in the natural world far more breathtaking that the rather one-dimensional and mundane way that religions suppose that it came to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious Who said they couldn't? I was just pointing out that one is evidence based and the other requires by its very nature that you suspend your disbelief. As for so called 'spirituality', I find that the awe and wonder of what exists and how it came to be in the natural world far more breathtaking that the rather one-dimensional and mundane way that religions suppose that it came to be. " Do you feel that to be spiritual you need to be religious in the conventional sense? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or gravity, I can't see it but there is is making apples fall out of the tree." Gravity is a faith thing, it only exists because we believe in it, anyone who doesn't believe in it instantly shoots off into space so can't tell anyone else it isn't real. And the world is still flat, with dragons as stated previously. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or gravity, I can't see it but there is is making apples fall out of the tree. Gravity is a faith thing, it only exists because we believe in it, anyone who doesn't believe in it instantly shoots off into space so can't tell anyone else it isn't real. And the world is still flat, with dragons as stated previously. "Do you know I didn't realise that! Is that where my mate went in 1976? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The theoretical side where proof is probably never going to be absolute generally relates to time and location limitations, and in that aspect you are correct we will never establish absolute fact. " The entire of science is theoretical - that is how it works, and that is WHY it works. There is no such thing as absolute fact, but like I said if you wanted to assert that the world was flat, say, then the burden of proof would be on you to show that. And you couldn't. Ergo we accept is is that slightly off-spherical shape that all the evidence points towards. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious Who said they couldn't? I was just pointing out that one is evidence based and the other requires by its very nature that you suspend your disbelief. " Yeah but think about it, all this evidence has been gathered by scientists across the world but not you. You haven't done any experiments. So you are believing what science is telling you. Exactly like a religious person. They have not seen things themselves but they believe the 'evidence' given by others. Religion and science are both belief systems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious Who said they couldn't? I was just pointing out that one is evidence based and the other requires by its very nature that you suspend your disbelief. Yeah but think about it, all this evidence has been gathered by scientists across the world but not you. You haven't done any experiments. So you are believing what science is telling you. Exactly like a religious person. They have not seen things themselves but they believe the 'evidence' given by others. Religion and science are both belief systems. " So just because I didn't do an experiment myself, it somehow didn't happen? There are journals and a peer-review process... Also, I have completed more than one piece of my own research, thanks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you feel that to be spiritual you need to be religious in the conventional sense?" I have no idea, because I don't think there is a strict definition of what it is. I am fascinated by the natural world. Is that spirituality? Who knows? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science is pretty much a belief like religion itself. Atoms, electrons, oxygen etc etc are things you can not see but you believe are there because that is what you have been told. No different to religion really. Don't talk cock. Science is changing all the time, religion isn't. Also - just because you can't see something with the naked eye, does not mean that it is beyond the wit of man to find ways of seeing it. Yeah but you agree that you personally can not see atoms around you but you accept they are there because that's what you learnt right? It's the same as religion. Religious people can't see things but accept it's there because that is what they have been taught. No, I accept it because thats what the majority of the evidence points toward. The way we understand atoms explains in part why molecules interact in a certain way. See: Chemistry. Yeah but you are still chasing to believe the evidence and theories science is giving you. Which is fine because to you it is rational and logical and so makes sense of things in the world for you. But people can also make sense of the world using other theories which may not be scientific but religious Who said they couldn't? I was just pointing out that one is evidence based and the other requires by its very nature that you suspend your disbelief. Yeah but think about it, all this evidence has been gathered by scientists across the world but not you. You haven't done any experiments. So you are believing what science is telling you. Exactly like a religious person. They have not seen things themselves but they believe the 'evidence' given by others. Religion and science are both belief systems. So just because I didn't do an experiment myself, it somehow didn't happen? There are journals and a peer-review process... Also, I have completed more than one piece of my own research, thanks. " I am not saying it didn't happen. I am just saying that . . . . Ah forget it lol. Less talk on religion/science and more shaggin I say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So just because I didn't do an experiment myself, it somehow didn't happen? There are journals and a peer-review process... Also, I have completed more than one piece of my own research, thanks." So just because you have not experienced something you consider a miracle, that defies explanation, it either did not happen or can be explained by science we have not yet discovered? There are numerous reports of apparently miraculous or supernatural occurrences. Ok, they can't be peer-reviewed because they are unpredictable but the sheer number suggests there's a lot more going on in our universe than we have any idea about. Some choose to believe these accounts and to them, that is evidence. Certainly it's fantastically less robust than a lot of scientific evidence but it is basically the same. Some people experienced it and reported it and other people believe them. I'm a scientist and a techie so I have a great deal of trouble accepting that which I cannot see, touch or test. I used to believe that the theory of evolution and faith were polar opposites; that it was possible to believe only one. I still don't believe the stories of the bible or align myself with the belief in the God that Christians have historically believed in. My thinking has evolved however, gradually, to a point where I can accept the possibility of some kind of spirituality or a higher power. I can't say I believe but I can see it as a possibility. I can also now see how science, the theory of evolution and a belief in a higher power can all exist together. I have been able to reach this point of thinking what feels comfortable to me because I know about science and the theory of evolution and I have a degree of knowledge of the beliefs of several religions. We should be teaching children a broad spectrum of science and faith. We should be equipping them with this knowledge and encouraging them to question. We should not be pushing one particular set of beliefs on them. As for leaps of faiths, if no science is proven, then everyone who switches on their kettle is making a leap of faith that the water will boil and they'll be able to make their tea.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was just pointing out that one is evidence based and the other requires by its very nature that you suspend your disbelief. As for so called 'spirituality', I find that the awe and wonder of what exists and how it came to be in the natural world far more breathtaking that the rather one-dimensional and mundane way that religions suppose that it came to be. " I have to say Jimi it's refreshing to finally meet someone who understands the beauty of Science i.e. that it's ever changing, fueled by doubt, and only ever interested in what demonstrably works and not what is 'true'. Good science, imo, always seeks to deconstruct and question itself...just in case it got something wrong. And that is why I believe evolution theory is bad science...precisely because it does not have a healthy skepticism of itself. You only have to look at such events as Piltdown man to see scientists prepared to bend the truth in order to prove their theories. Unfortunately this kind of falsification still goes on inside science but most humanists prefer to turn a blind eye to it...preferring instead to imagine science as something pure and somehow super human. Where we completely loose each other, however, is in your understanding of religion which, imo, is something of a cardboard caricature. I understand you have problems with people who blindly accept a literal reading of books such as the bible simply because someone told them it was true. But this merely means you are anti-literalism...not anti-religious. Most religions are heavily biased towards poetic musings upon the meaning of life, not literalism. Indeed many religious people become religious not because they were told something was true...but because they experience it's truth. In that sense it is entirely possible to believe that a divine energy pervades the entire universe, to tap into that energy and confirm it's presence yourself, and then lead a life venerating and giving adoration to that energetic source. This is most assuredly a religious point of view. For many religious people this energy is awake and alive...it is conscious...and they come to appreciate this when they come into contact with it...not necessarily just because others tell them it is. This is why many people also personalise this source into a being which they call God. Most atheists are too stuck on their literalist reading of religion to grasp that most religious people don't know anything else about God other than that God exists. The Catholic church explicitly states that not only is God unknown to us...but that God is entirely unknowable. So, by all means, shoot down bearded men on clouds...but this is just a war on literalism...and in that regard I am firmly on your side. It is not a war on religion
There is only one God and that God is the source of all things. The various religions call that source different names and believe that we should do different things to venerate it. Scientists differ not by lacking this source of all things...they call it the big bang. They merely differ in that they don't believe it is worthy of any veneration at all. It was, after all, JUST an event
Where most humanists/atheists stumble is in that question of what came before the big bang i.e. what caused it...and then, of course, what caused that too i.e. the ultimate source of all things. They might argue that there is no source...or that it is simply unknowable and therefore not worth thinking about. Both of these points of view is conjecture of the most extreme kind. Some religious people, I'm not saying all, have been able to tap into that Great Soul which surrounds us and from who we come. Therefore, in the absence of any theories or any interest from scientific circles concerning the ultimate source of all things...their experiences with that source must suffice
Wow anyone who actually bothers to read all of that wins a lollipop | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you feel that to be spiritual you need to be religious in the conventional sense? I have no idea, because I don't think there is a strict definition of what it is. I am fascinated by the natural world. Is that spirituality? Who knows?" Precisely...who knows? For what little it's worth I think a fascination and appreciation of the natural world is deeply spiritual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read it all. In fact I read the entire thread. Very interesting with people contradicting themselves and just point blank refuse to just except anothers view. Religion and science are both beliefs. Both based entirely on an unknown unseen element. Surely that makes them one of the same and one can not exist without the other. God placed us here=religion Man wanted to know exactly how we are placed here=science. " It's possible that evolution could be the answer to "how?" and not the answer to "why?". Who knows whether religion or science will accept the facts when they're discovered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow anyone who actually bothers to read all of that wins a lollipop "I want my lollipop...
I prefer the "oh bugger, bang theory" myself, 2 bits of cosmic dust travelling at ever greater speeds spread outside the universe that they came from, one going clockwise the other anti-clockwise (which of course is nonsense as those terms relate to our orbit only!) particle A is sending a text, particle B is receiving a BJ, suddenly they look up and realise they are on a collision course at super cosmic speed and have time to think of bugger before colliding , currently there are two grains of dust spiralling outwards at ever greater speeds from this universe, one day....
Bottom line is you are right, somewhere sometime something started the first big bang, maybe an infinite number of universes have winked in and out of existence since then, but if it's not down to random chaos then the creator is very very distant from homo sapiens | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read it all. In fact I read the entire thread. Very interesting with people contradicting themselves and just point blank refuse to just except anothers view. Religion and science are both beliefs. Both based entirely on an unknown unseen element. Surely that makes them one of the same and one can not exist without the other. God placed us here=religion Man wanted to know exactly how we are placed here=science. It's possible that evolution could be the answer to "how?" and not the answer to "why?". Who knows whether religion or science will accept the facts when they're discovered." Religion and science aren't the things that will be accepting facts or not, the religious and the scientific people are and that's where the problem started in the first place | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
In the mean time, I will try to minimise the harm I do whilst having fun. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read it all. In fact I read the entire thread. Very interesting with people contradicting themselves and just point blank refuse to just except anothers view. Religion and science are both beliefs. Both based entirely on an unknown unseen element. Surely that makes them one of the same and one can not exist without the other. God placed us here=religion Man wanted to know exactly how we are placed here=science. It's possible that evolution could be the answer to "how?" and not the answer to "why?". Who knows whether religion or science will accept the facts when they're discovered. Religion and science aren't the things that will be accepting facts or not, the religious and the scientific people are and that's where the problem started in the first place" That's very true, but religion and science only exist because of humans. Hopefully, one day, one will concede in the favour of the other when presented with proof. That's what I would call human evolution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I like to think that 45minutes before the sun goes supernova humans will have an epiphany, and suddenly understand everything, before disappearing into black hole forever
In the mean time, I will try to minimise the harm I do whilst having fun."Yep! that's about the best any of us can hope for or strive for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was just pointing out that one is evidence based and the other requires by its very nature that you suspend your disbelief. As for so called 'spirituality', I find that the awe and wonder of what exists and how it came to be in the natural world far more breathtaking that the rather one-dimensional and mundane way that religions suppose that it came to be. I have to say Jimi it's refreshing to finally meet someone who understands the beauty of Science i.e. that it's ever changing, fueled by doubt, and only ever interested in what demonstrably works and not what is 'true'. Good science, imo, always seeks to deconstruct and question itself...just in case it got something wrong. And that is why I believe evolution theory is bad science...precisely because it does not have a healthy skepticism of itself. You only have to look at such events as Piltdown man to see scientists prepared to bend the truth in order to prove their theories. Unfortunately this kind of falsification still goes on inside science but most humanists prefer to turn a blind eye to it...preferring instead to imagine science as something pure and somehow super human. Where we completely loose each other, however, is in your understanding of religion which, imo, is something of a cardboard caricature. I understand you have problems with people who blindly accept a literal reading of books such as the bible simply because someone told them it was true. But this merely means you are anti-literalism...not anti-religious. Most religions are heavily biased towards poetic musings upon the meaning of life, not literalism. Indeed many religious people become religious not because they were told something was true...but because they experience it's truth. In that sense it is entirely possible to believe that a divine energy pervades the entire universe, to tap into that energy and confirm it's presence yourself, and then lead a life venerating and giving adoration to that energetic source. This is most assuredly a religious point of view. For many religious people this energy is awake and alive...it is conscious...and they come to appreciate this when they come into contact with it...not necessarily just because others tell them it is. This is why many people also personalise this source into a being which they call God. Most atheists are too stuck on their literalist reading of religion to grasp that most religious people don't know anything else about God other than that God exists. The Catholic church explicitly states that not only is God unknown to us...but that God is entirely unknowable. So, by all means, shoot down bearded men on clouds...but this is just a war on literalism...and in that regard I am firmly on your side. It is not a war on religion
There is only one God and that God is the source of all things. The various religions call that source different names and believe that we should do different things to venerate it. Scientists differ not by lacking this source of all things...they call it the big bang. They merely differ in that they don't believe it is worthy of any veneration at all. It was, after all, JUST an event
Where most humanists/atheists stumble is in that question of what came before the big bang i.e. what caused it...and then, of course, what caused that too i.e. the ultimate source of all things. They might argue that there is no source...or that it is simply unknowable and therefore not worth thinking about. Both of these points of view is conjecture of the most extreme kind. Some religious people, I'm not saying all, have been able to tap into that Great Soul which surrounds us and from who we come. Therefore, in the absence of any theories or any interest from scientific circles concerning the ultimate source of all things...their experiences with that source must suffice
Wow anyone who actually bothers to read all of that wins a lollipop "Right let's get this fluffy beard nonsense out the way. Before we discus a god concept as there are more than one it is correct to define our concept All god concepts exist as human invented hypothesis the only clear interchangeable word that works is a creator of all that exists with a sentient concious . Like it or not energy alone is not interchangeable with the word god . Nor is higher being that is just an alien . The use of the word divine before energy is babble for concious creator. Energy all around cool I agree . This energy thinks and manipulates matter ,no Having a connected spiritual feeling also has zero to do with a god concept I wonder how the Catholic Church knows there is a real but unknowable creator , if it is unknowable they could not possibly know anything about it x the fact is because there is zero data to suggest a creator exists they made up the attribute for their make believe x So evolution vs creation I have no idea why you shade the plausibility of a creator vs evolution as equal ? They are not! data validating evolution is vast and cross referenced , but by no means complete . The data validating a creator is zero . Just a note religion is following a human invented doctrine . Deist s feel a creator exists but does not dictate. As for the media mangled big bang , we know the visible universe is expanding thus was smaller x we know early universe was gas cloud. Beyond that is sadly speculation .but non of the plausible alternative s require a creator and a creator concept always leaves us with the circular What created the creator x We don't need to know the details to illustrate why white beard god is fiction and using the same level headed logic most human invented god concepts can be consigned to the fiction section The facts we know about evolution mean that unless coal is fake , chalk is fake , slate is fake , radioactive half life's nonsense , dna fake all lead us to be confident that the creator was unnecessary on earth .The fact we can observe material around a star gravitate means no need for a planet creator nor a star creator . It usually comes down to Creator of unimaginable complexity has always existed and made stuff Or something fundamental and non complex has always existed and adapted then evolved complex The data leads the shading of probability not to be equal by any stretch x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Back to thread point Child is taught that the xtian god is fact x that coal is made in 100 years that chalk is not sea creatures, that humans existed day 7 after earth was made that all humans come from Noah . That all dinosaur bones are fake x I feel this is wrong to teach xx" Which school taught her this ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I believe the universe is alive, that it has a consciousness, and it is interested in me. Where some of you see no evidence for such a possibility...I have more than enough evidence via my own experience. Science, unfortunately, falls down in it's ability to prove many things which we know are fundamentally real but are part of the experience of living rather than any kind of material object.
Try proving the existence of Love
Try proving the existence of Consciousness
We know that both exist because we can readily and easily experience them. The same is true for the existence of the living universe. However...how can science hope to prove the universe is alive and conscious if it can't even prove that we are alive and conscious?
What created the living universe? Nothing. It was never created. It has always existed and always will. It is infinite. How do I know this? It told me
Lol I just know you're gonna love that one  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well done everyone! Lollipops all round
I believe the universe is alive, that it has a consciousness, and it is interested in me. Where some of you see no evidence for such a possibility...I have more than enough evidence via my own experience. Science, unfortunately, falls down in it's ability to prove many things which we know are fundamentally real but are part of the experience of living rather than any kind of material object.
Try proving the existence of Love
Try proving the existence of Consciousness
We know that both exist because we can readily and easily experience them. The same is true for the existence of the living universe. However...how can science hope to prove the universe is alive and conscious if it can't even prove that we are alive and conscious?
What created the living universe? Nothing. It was never created. It has always existed and always will. It is infinite. How do I know this? It told me
Lol I just know you're gonna love that one "First it was the child's family not the school which has performed the indoctrination . Just because love is an abstract noun does not mean it cannot be tested same goes for consciousness .amazing what emotions show up when you have a Mri scan .its also interesting how we can measure hormones such as dopamine , testosterone, endorphin, blood sugar and lots of other chemical s which have testable effect x I know you're not right regarding the universe having a consciousness which spoke to you as the two fairies I know who only I can see and hear , told me they were with you as you experienced the delusions .fortunately they also told me to regard all the data on the human mind and it's desire to make sense out of nonsense, citing over a million visual and audio "optical illusions" suggesting I pay special attention to ink blots and Clouds that look like dragons and elvis .There is zero data to suggest there is a universal awareness .feeling wonder does not equate to anything other than an emotional response to the subjective. Knowing no creative force exists is great , I can regard malaria, hiv, tuberculosis, and human suffering objectively. Place a sentient creator energy there and it is responsible x There is zero data to suggest the universe has ever anywhere acted in a way that could be postulated it was a concious Decision But lucky found his wallet he lost 3 years ago in a sharks tummy That must be a concious thought ?. Yes quite right while the universal consciousness helped lucky find his wallet it totally forgot about the 3 year olds a Mr Saville was playing with. Ah well the thought processes of a thinking universe are odd . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All religion is fiction, religion does not exist in nature; people invented gods and other supernatural beings to explain things they were unable to understand and then the self styled priests made up the rules to get power and to scare people into toeing the line. There are hundreds of creation myths some more ridiculous than others but the Christian one which most people know is just dumb, you do need to be particularly thick to believe that one. And for all those dimwits who do believe the bible stories, consider - Adam and Eve, have children, the next generation comes from .. the incestuous relationships of Adam and Eve's children, so obviously incest is fine if you believe in god. And finally; God is supposedly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, if that is so he wouldn't need a bunch of megalomaniacs on planet earth to deal with the naughty people. If god really existed all the religious leaders and zealots would have been eradicated for their arrogance, the mere existence of religion demonstrates the absence of a god. Get rid of religion from this planet and you get rid of at least half the conflicts Spot on "Get rid of greed and you get rid of more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Firstly I don't think you'll ever be able to stop children's families from indoctrinating them...that is unless you fancy starting a Third Reich
Secondly with love and consciousness science can only ever measure what reactions take place. They cannot find the source of those reactions. The assumption is that the brain manufactures consciousness. But it could also be equally viable that the brain merely receives it and that consciousness actually pervades the universe rather than just in our brains.
"fortunately they also told me to regard all the data on the human mind and it's desire to make sense out of nonsense"
Couldn't have put it better. A truly wonderful critique of science Us monkeys excel at pattern recognition. A huge amount of our scientific knowledge comes down to mere pattern recognition. I would therefore suggest that a large part of our scientific discoveries are just illusions of the human mind
Fortunately we have the capacity, if we chose to explore it, to tap into a consciousness beyond us. You have your fairies...I have something without a name but I chose to call God because it describes it adequately. I respect you and your fairy wisdom...although it does not pertain to the universe I live in
Finally this whole tired argument that if God existed there'd be no such thing as evil...or that because evil exists God must be a twisted fuck. Evil is a construct of the human mind. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. I'm not condoning acts of 'Evil'...I'm just saying that God is unlikely to see it in the same way we do. Just because we don't understand God's plan doesn't mean that there isn't a plan or that this plan is vindictive and nasty. I believe everything has it's place and even those who have suffered terrible pain and anguish have not done so for no reason...I believe there is a higher purpose to all of it. I'm sure that will comfort some and outrage others. It all depends upon how you see your relationship with the universe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well done everyone! Lollipops all round
I believe the universe is alive, that it has a consciousness, and it is interested in me. Where some of you see no evidence for such a possibility...I have more than enough evidence via my own experience. Science, unfortunately, falls down in it's ability to prove many things which we know are fundamentally real but are part of the experience of living rather than any kind of material object.
Try proving the existence of Love
Try proving the existence of Consciousness
We know that both exist because we can readily and easily experience them. The same is true for the existence of the living universe. However...how can science hope to prove the universe is alive and conscious if it can't even prove that we are alive and conscious?
What created the living universe? Nothing. It was never created. It has always existed and always will. It is infinite. How do I know this? It told me
Lol I just know you're gonna love that one "You haven't been to the amazon by any chance? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You haven't been to the amazon by any chance?" Errr no...why? (he said tentatively, anticipating a slap round the back of the head lol ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You haven't been to the amazon by any chance? Errr no...why? (he said tentatively, anticipating a slap round the back of the head lol )"Just feels like you had one of their lovely teas | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You haven't been to the amazon by any chance? Errr no...why? (he said tentatively, anticipating a slap round the back of the head lol )
Just feels like you had one of their lovely teas "lol Phew really thought I was gonna get a whacking there Mmm yummy Ayahusca brew...not yer average PG Tips lol Nah haven't ventured that far off the chart yet...but I am an artist who grew up during the rave years so make of that what you will | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Odd how as different parts of the brain degenerate by I'll health , harm , age , lack of sugar , lack of oxygen. Lack of sleep . And the observed effect x millions of lovely data points x oh and drugs ha ha xx " So what's your cause, reason? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You haven't been to the amazon by any chance? Errr no...why? (he said tentatively, anticipating a slap round the back of the head lol )
Just feels like you had one of their lovely teas
lol Phew really thought I was gonna get a whacking there Mmm yummy Ayahusca brew...not yer average PG Tips lol Nah haven't ventured that far off the chart yet...but I am an artist who grew up during the rave years so make of that what you will "Shame we are not allowed to talk about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Odd how as different parts of the brain degenerate by I'll health , harm , age , lack of sugar , lack of oxygen. Lack of sleep . And the observed effect x millions of lovely data points x oh and drugs ha ha xx" I think you'd find damage and degradation and use and abuse would also reduce the effectiveness of a radio receiver
Oh and Sextoysareus...can we not discuss Amazonian PG Tips? Is that against forum rules or something? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Odd how as different parts of the brain degenerate by I'll health , harm , age , lack of sugar , lack of oxygen. Lack of sleep . And the observed effect x millions of lovely data points x oh and drugs ha ha xx I think you'd find damage and degradation and use and abuse would also reduce the effectiveness of a radio receiver
Oh and Sextoysareus...can we not discuss Amazonian PG Tips? Is that against forum rules or something? "Yep
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Odd how as different parts of the brain degenerate by I'll health , harm , age , lack of sugar , lack of oxygen. Lack of sleep . And the observed effect x millions of lovely data points x oh and drugs ha ha xx I think you'd find damage and degradation and use and abuse would also reduce the effectiveness of a radio receiver
Oh and Sextoysareus...can we not discuss Amazonian PG Tips? Is that against forum rules or something? "Knew that you would say that x Efectiveness ? Good let's think about that , what thinking does a receiver do ? Very little .so damage a receiver one damages sound quality picture quality however it does not change the story xx so being d*unk would not make an out of body mind pissed , slurr yes but not shout out of character remarks at random people along a street Long story short mess with the human brain and the person changes . If the concious was in the ether it would not be affected by drugs who's effects and behaviour can be studied x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I suspect you, and others on this thread, are trying to use the word God in an extremely limited Christian way...referring to a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud. This God is easy to deconstruct because it's the most ridiculous of them all. The other meanings of the word God are far more convincing and meaningful and therefore get overlooked by most atheists...who are essentially simply anti-Christians "I'm afraid your suspicions would be wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method." Its a fairly ridiculous statement as I have tried to explain numerous times. I have taken great pains to explain the differences between the two, however it appears to have been largely ignored or misunderstood and I had to stop before I pysically banged my head on the desk. For example; a famous Biologist who is also Christian is that Robert Winston feller. I'm fairly sure that christianity is his faith and the application of science is how he understands the natural world/cures diseases etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method." We are, but we don't know for certain how they work. Just as we exist and we don't know for certain how. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method. Its a fairly ridiculous statement as I have tried to explain numerous times. I have taken great pains to explain the differences between the two, however it appears to have been largely ignored or misunderstood and I had to stop before I pysically banged my head on the desk. For example; a famous Biologist who is also Christian is that Robert Winston feller. I'm fairly sure that christianity is his faith and the application of science is how he understands the natural world/cures diseases etc. " He's Jewish, does that change things? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He's Jewish, does that change things?" It nearly inspired me to make a very non-PC joke. But I'm behaving. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method. Its a fairly ridiculous statement as I have tried to explain numerous times. I have taken great pains to explain the differences between the two, however it appears to have been largely ignored or misunderstood and I had to stop before I pysically banged my head on the desk. For example; a famous Biologist who is also Christian is that Robert Winston feller. I'm fairly sure that christianity is his faith and the application of science is how he understands the natural world/cures diseases etc. He's Jewish, does that change things?" I thought he was a practising Christian?......ah well, the point still stands if he is a Jew or a Muslim or a Bhuddist or... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
The limits of our capacity to know are embarrassingly close. It's obvious when you think about it...we are just animals after all. An Alien civilization would probably laugh their arses off at us. Thinking how quaint it is that a bunch of chimps recon they've solved the riddle of their own existence | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At it's root science relies upon a core leap of faith not unlike that of any other 'faith'. This leap of " No it Fucking Doesn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method. We are, but we don't know for certain how they work. Just as we exist and we don't know for certain how." We don't need to know the exact details of how they work. Although we can find out with many of the things we make use of. The point is that it is science that has created these things and we can see the fruits of these endeavours. Science doesn't take faith and isn't a belief system given we can see the results of the scientific method and indeed make use of them numerous times every single day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At it's root science relies upon a core leap of faith not unlike that of any other 'faith'. This leap of No it Fucking Doesn't." Yes it Fucking Does lol I can feel the tone of this thread descending a gear or two...maybe it's time to just politely agree to disagree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method. We are, but we don't know for certain how they work. Just as we exist and we don't know for certain how. We don't need to know the exact details of how they work. Although we can find out with many of the things we make use of. The point is that it is science that has created these things and we can see the fruits of these endeavours. Science doesn't take faith and isn't a belief system given we can see the results of the scientific method and indeed make use of them numerous times every single day." In most cases we've learned how to make things by doing, and then trying to understand why they work. They weren't created by science. It's more that we find things that happen/work and then evaluate why. In a similar way, here we are and we're trying to understand how. You suggest science cannot be a belief system because technology exists. That technology exists is not proof of anything other than we know how to make technology. It can be used to develop scientific theories but it doesn't prove anything about science at all. In fact, has it not been argued that nothing in science is proven? Therefore, if not proven and therefore not a fact, it has to be a belief system. Anything you believe to be true but can't prove is a belief, no matter how much evidence you are placing that faith in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Parents grand parents great grand parents and the preacher x Is it really that important for people only to believe in evolution? What is the harm in someone believing in creationism?" Because believing a lie is wrong? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At it's root science relies upon a core leap of faith not unlike that of any other 'faith'. This leap of No it Fucking Doesn't. Yes it Fucking Does lol I can feel the tone of this thread descending a gear or two...maybe it's time to just politely agree to disagree? "Yeah science has its uses, religion has its uses. Leave it at that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method. We are, but we don't know for certain how they work. Just as we exist and we don't know for certain how." We do know how they work....we'll i do anyway! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method. We are, but we don't know for certain how they work. Just as we exist and we don't know for certain how. We do know how they work....we'll i do anyway!" On an atomic level? Have you seen the electrons running around or us that still just a theory? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am made of the dust of stars. "No shit?! You too?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All religion is fiction, religion does not exist in nature; people invented gods and other supernatural beings to explain things they were unable to understand and then the self styled priests made up the rules to get power and to scare people into toeing the line. There are hundreds of creation myths some more ridiculous than others but the Christian one which most people know is just dumb, you do need to be particularly thick to believe that one. And for all those dimwits who do believe the bible stories, consider - Adam and Eve, have children, the next generation comes from .. the incestuous relationships of Adam and Eve's children, so obviously incest is fine if you believe in god. And finally; God is supposedly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, if that is so he wouldn't need a bunch of megalomaniacs on planet earth to deal with the naughty people. If god really existed all the religious leaders and zealots would have been eradicated for their arrogance, the mere existence of religion demonstrates the absence of a god. Get rid of religion from this planet and you get rid of at least half the conflicts" Sorry but historically that's just not true. World war 1,world war2, pol pot's Khmer Rouge, American civil war, French Revolution, Crimean war, war in Iraq, break up of former Yugoslavia to name but a few. I agree that religion gets dragged in to this but it's just nonsense that you'd get rid of most conflicts. If you removed religion there'd be another excuse for conflict. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method. We are, but we don't know for certain how they work. Just as we exist and we don't know for certain how. We don't need to know the exact details of how they work. Although we can find out with many of the things we make use of. The point is that it is science that has created these things and we can see the fruits of these endeavours. Science doesn't take faith and isn't a belief system given we can see the results of the scientific method and indeed make use of them numerous times every single day. In most cases we've learned how to make things by doing, and then trying to understand why they work. They weren't created by science. It's more that we find things that happen/work and then evaluate why. In a similar way, here we are and we're trying to understand how. You suggest science cannot be a belief system because technology exists. That technology exists is not proof of anything other than we know how to make technology. It can be used to develop scientific theories but it doesn't prove anything about science at all. In fact, has it not been argued that nothing in science is proven? Therefore, if not proven and therefore not a fact, it has to be a belief system. Anything you believe to be true but can't prove is a belief, no matter how much evidence you are placing that faith in." You do realise that when you say 'They weren't created by science. It's more that we find things that happen/work and then evaluate why.' you are pretty much referring to science. To quote from an online dictionary '1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. ' Science isn't just all about guys in labs searching for the Higgs Boson and discussing string theory. It's science that gives us all the gadgets etc we use on a daily basis. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science isn't just all about guys in labs searching for the Higgs Boson and discussing string theory. It's science that gives us all the gadgets etc we use on a daily basis." I think we just reached the bottom of whatever intellectual ravine we all fell into | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science isn't just all about guys in labs searching for the Higgs Boson and discussing string theory. It's science that gives us all the gadgets etc we use on a daily basis. I think we just reached the bottom of whatever intellectual ravine we all fell into "I think you're probably speaking for yourself on this one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I should add I find 'science and religion are both beliefs' to be a particularly strange statement. Especially as we're all making use of devices that wouldn't exist without the scientific method. We are, but we don't know for certain how they work. Just as we exist and we don't know for certain how. We don't need to know the exact details of how they work. Although we can find out with many of the things we make use of. The point is that it is science that has created these things and we can see the fruits of these endeavours. Science doesn't take faith and isn't a belief system given we can see the results of the scientific method and indeed make use of them numerous times every single day. In most cases we've learned how to make things by doing, and then trying to understand why they work. They weren't created by science. It's more that we find things that happen/work and then evaluate why. In a similar way, here we are and we're trying to understand how. You suggest science cannot be a belief system because technology exists. That technology exists is not proof of anything other than we know how to make technology. It can be used to develop scientific theories but it doesn't prove anything about science at all. In fact, has it not been argued that nothing in science is proven? Therefore, if not proven and therefore not a fact, it has to be a belief system. Anything you believe to be true but can't prove is a belief, no matter how much evidence you are placing that faith in. You do realise that when you say 'They weren't created by science. It's more that we find things that happen/work and then evaluate why.' you are pretty much referring to science. To quote from an online dictionary '1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. ' Science isn't just all about guys in labs searching for the Higgs Boson and discussing string theory. It's science that gives us all the gadgets etc we use on a daily basis." Oh dear. I don't know why I'm bothering here but I'll give it a go. Science did not create the technology, (at least in the most part). The science part comes AFTER we've made something that does something and we study it to find out why. The science usually comes after the creation. Take a look at your copied and pasted definition. Do you see where it mentions studying things? Where does it mention creating things? In fact the creation is often (maybe even usually) engineering. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Science isn't just all about guys in labs searching for the Higgs Boson and discussing string theory. It's science that gives us all the gadgets etc we use on a daily basis. I think we just reached the bottom of whatever intellectual ravine we all fell into
I think you're probably speaking for yourself on this one."So far evidence would suggest otherwise. It's not a proven fact but I expect more evidence will accrue in the near future. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear. I don't know why I'm bothering here but I'll give it a go. Science did not create the technology, (at least in the most part). The science part comes AFTER we've made something that does something and we study it to find out why. The science usually comes after the creation. Take a look at your copied and pasted definition. Do you see where it mentions studying things? Where does it mention creating things? In fact the creation is often (maybe even usually) engineering." Sorry but this is completely wrong and back to front. As an example, we didn't somehow make a microchip and then study it to find out how and why it works. It was science that allowed us the knowledge to know how to build it and what it was capable of doing. The science came before the creation of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear. I don't know why I'm bothering here but I'll give it a go. Science did not create the technology, (at least in the most part). The science part comes AFTER we've made something that does something and we study it to find out why. The science usually comes after the creation. Take a look at your copied and pasted definition. Do you see where it mentions studying things? Where does it mention creating things? In fact the creation is often (maybe even usually) engineering. Sorry but this is completely wrong and back to front. As an example, we didn't somehow make a microchip and then study it to find out how and why it works. It was science that allowed us the knowledge to know how to build it and what it was capable of doing. The science came before the creation of it." We observe what things do and work out how to use them, in general, before we study how they work. The camera was invented after the observation of the action of light on silver-chloride and that observation was utilised. Nobody knew how it worked, just that it did work. It was after it was invented that scientists found out how it worked. Penicillin was discovered by accident. What it did was noted. We had no idea how it did it. We worked that out later. A lot of historical remedies were used because they were found to work. Nobody knew about receptors, agonists, antagonists and the rest of it. So, tell me in more detail how science designed the microchip? I use a lot of microchips but I don't know a lot about the development. So please, enlighten me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Science did not create the technology, (at least in the most part). The science part comes AFTER we've made something that does something and we study it to find out why. The science usually comes after the creation. Take a look at your copied and pasted definition. Do you see where it mentions studying things? Where does it mention creating things? In fact the creation is often (maybe even usually) engineering." What the? I mean.... seriously? Did we create a frog then? Or a badger, or an amoeba or E.coli or salt or water or carbon dioxide? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Science did not create the technology, (at least in the most part). The science part comes AFTER we've made something that does something and we study it to find out why. The science usually comes after the creation. Take a look at your copied and pasted definition. Do you see where it mentions studying things? Where does it mention creating things? In fact the creation is often (maybe even usually) engineering. What the? I mean.... seriously? Did we create a frog then? Or a badger, or an amoeba or E.coli or salt or water or carbon dioxide?" Uh not that I'm aware of. I am having a bad day but I think we're talking about science making technology. So unless you mean a battery operated frog or a remote control amoeba, probably not. Of course, I could have completely missed the point of your post. In which case, please feel free to clarify. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear. I don't know why I'm bothering here but I'll give it a go. Science did not create the technology, (at least in the most part). The science part comes AFTER we've made something that does something and we study it to find out why. The science usually comes after the creation. Take a look at your copied and pasted definition. Do you see where it mentions studying things? Where does it mention creating things? In fact the creation is often (maybe even usually) engineering. Sorry but this is completely wrong and back to front. As an example, we didn't somehow make a microchip and then study it to find out how and why it works. It was science that allowed us the knowledge to know how to build it and what it was capable of doing. The science came before the creation of it. We observe what things do and work out how to use them, in general, before we study how they work. The camera was invented after the observation of the action of light on silver-chloride and that observation was utilised. Nobody knew how it worked, just that it did work. It was after it was invented that scientists found out how it worked. Penicillin was discovered by accident. What it did was noted. We had no idea how it did it. We worked that out later. A lot of historical remedies were used because they were found to work. Nobody knew about receptors, agonists, antagonists and the rest of it. So, tell me in more detail how science designed the microchip? I use a lot of microchips but I don't know a lot about the development. So please, enlighten me." If you're truly interested then, like most things, there's a very good description of it all on wiki. You will see that it was conceived before it was made. Also, a quick google on 'microchip scientific achievement' will bring up lots of pages showing it was indeed a scientific achievement and not something that was just put together and then studied. In fact any search for scientific achievements will bring up mutliple items that concern our everyday lives. The fact that the discoverey of penicillin was a fortuotis accident doesn't mean that all scientific discoveries followed this route. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear. I don't know why I'm bothering here but I'll give it a go. Science did not create the technology, (at least in the most part). The science part comes AFTER we've made something that does something and we study it to find out why. The science usually comes after the creation. Take a look at your copied and pasted definition. Do you see where it mentions studying things? Where does it mention creating things? In fact the creation is often (maybe even usually) engineering. Sorry but this is completely wrong and back to front. As an example, we didn't somehow make a microchip and then study it to find out how and why it works. It was science that allowed us the knowledge to know how to build it and what it was capable of doing. The science came before the creation of it. We observe what things do and work out how to use them, in general, before we study how they work. The camera was invented after the observation of the action of light on silver-chloride and that observation was utilised. Nobody knew how it worked, just that it did work. It was after it was invented that scientists found out how it worked. Penicillin was discovered by accident. What it did was noted. We had no idea how it did it. We worked that out later. A lot of historical remedies were used because they were found to work. Nobody knew about receptors, agonists, antagonists and the rest of it. So, tell me in more detail how science designed the microchip? I use a lot of microchips but I don't know a lot about the development. So please, enlighten me. If you're truly interested then, like most things, there's a very good description of it all on wiki. You will see that it was conceived before it was made. Also, a quick google on 'microchip scientific achievement' will bring up lots of pages showing it was indeed a scientific achievement and not something that was just put together and then studied. In fact any search for scientific achievements will bring up mutliple items that concern our everyday lives. The fact that the discoverey of penicillin was a fortuotis accident doesn't mean that all scientific discoveries followed this route. " Likewise even if the microchip were "created by science" (and I still doubt it), it doesn't mean everything else, or anything else, was. Thank you for backing up your assertion by directing me to Wiki (The One True Reference). I bothered to give you examples and explain how they didn't fit your assertion. "Look at Wiki" isn't much of an argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact that the discoverey of penicillin was a fortuotis accident doesn't mean that all scientific discoveries followed this route. " Even then, the fact that the mould landed on Flemings slides by accident is pretty moot. It was the observation of its behaviour/the recording thereof that was the 'science bit'...the application of the science was the manufacture of the drug...eventually. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact that the discoverey of penicillin was a fortuotis accident doesn't mean that all scientific discoveries followed this route. Even then, the fact that the mould landed on Flemings slides by accident is pretty moot. It was the observation of its behaviour/the recording thereof that was the 'science bit'...the application of the science was the manufacture of the drug...eventually. " This is true, however... Nobody said "we need a drug to do x, y or z, what do we know that will allow us to create one?" Penicillin came from an observation. Science was not used to discover it. That's my point. But yes, science was later used to determine how to produce medicine from the discovery. That's the studying it after it was found part. Saying "science is not a belief system because we can use it to make things" is grasping at thin air. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The reason I directed you to wiki for an explanation is that it is so much simpler to link to it than spend half an hour typing out what would essentially be the same thing (with much of the detail etc missing). I was using wiki as a reference not an argument. I think you are mixing your terms up again." That would be part of your belief system then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
