Notices
Results 1 to 64 of 64

Thread: The Creation of the universe. Science is the way!

  1. #1 The Creation of the universe. Science is the way! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5
    Hi everyone,

    Please see the following:

    The creation of the universe

    Science is correct!

    Regards,
    Alan.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    In theory... :P


    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5
    Greetings,

    Yes in Theory, a book that was written 1400 years ago crushed the atheists way of thinking. Man came with their top scientist and their telescopes and you name it worth billions and billions and still no match for an old book.

    Care to explain?

    Reagrds,
    Alan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Scientific theories are not "correct"... they are theories supported by experimentation and observation

    by making them stronger than they truly are, those with an overly critical mind reject science completely, all because one person says "science is ineffable" in so many words

    That book you describe

    written may 29, 609

    I did a search but can't find it... The book sounds interesting though :wink: but it musn't have cought too many peoples attention. 609 seems to be a pretty dull year except for a few poets and a canal being built in china

    A book capable of crushing atheists? Hmmm... I doubt that.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan07
    Greetings,

    Yes in Theory, a book that was written 1400 years ago crushed the atheists way of thinking. Man came with their top scientist and their telescopes and you name it worth billions and billions and still no match for an old book.

    Care to explain?

    Reagrds,
    Alan.
    Yes.

    People are stupid, and misinformed.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: The Creation of the universe. Science is the way! 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan07
    Hi everyone,

    Please see the following:

    The creation of the universe
    .
    I shall post some comments on this video. It is nicely produced, but it contains some errors.
    1. Materialism does not make the claim that everything is only matter. Materialism acknowledges the existence of energy also. This is a rather glaring error, equivalent to saying mankind is composed entirely of females.
    2. The narrator states that science proved the universe had a beginning. In science we do not prove anything, but merely illuminate probabilities.
    3. The narrator states the Big Bang theory is accepted by the entire world of science. Try telling that to Hamilton Arp.
    4. The narrator states that Hubble discovered that the stars were emitting a reddish light because they were moving away from us. This is a ridiculous distortion of the red shift concept that call into question everything in this video. It is reasonably explained subsequently, but the intial presentation is sub standard.
    5. etc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Scientific theories are not "correct"... they are theories supported by experimentation and observation

    by making them stronger than they truly are, those with an overly critical mind reject science completely, all because one person says "science is ineffable" in so many words

    That book you describe

    written may 29, 609

    I did a search but can't find it... The book sounds interesting though :wink: but it musn't have cought too many peoples attention. 609 seems to be a pretty dull year except for a few poets and a canal being built in china

    A book capable of crushing atheists? Hmmm... I doubt that.
    Greetings,

    So your saying its a "theorie" and thus not a fact and thus you dont believe in it? But what about this one then?

    The Sex of the baby

    The creation of man?

    Your thoughts?

    Regards,
    Alan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan07
    [So your saying its a "theorie" and thus not a fact and thus you dont believe in it?
    You don't understand how science works. A theory is not a fact, but it is the highest level of explanation that can exist in science. A scientist believes a theory is the best current explantion of whatever it seeks to describe. That does not make it a fact, but it makes it the explanation that the scientist most inclines towards.

    Do you understand that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan07
    [So your saying its a "theorie" and thus not a fact and thus you dont believe in it?
    You don't understand how science works. A theory is not a fact, but it is the highest level of explanation that can exist in science. A scientist believes a theory is the best current explantion of whatever it seeks to describe. That does not make it a fact, but it makes it the explanation that the scientist most inclines towards.
    At least that is how it starts. Because a theory then becomes one of the scientists tools of the trade in order to conduct further scientific inquiry. Each successful application of that tool is an additional piece of evidence and confirmation of the theory. Eventually there is a point of no return when it is inconceivable that the theory could actually be incorrect. Incomplete or an approximation yes, but not incorrect because that history of scientific inquiry where the theory did work all that time cannot be erased.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    So your saying its a "theorie" and thus not a fact and thus you dont believe in it? But what about this one then?
    You need to understand the words you are using.

    At least that is how it starts. Because a theory then becomes one of the scientists tools of the trade in order to conduct further scientific inquiry. Each successful application of that tool is an additional piece of evidence and confirmation of the theory. Eventually there is a point of no return when it is inconceivable that the theory could actually be incorrect. Incomplete or an approximation yes, but not incorrect because that history of scientific inquiry where the theory did work all that time cannot be erased.
    You need to understand the words you are using.

    Let's see if we can offer counter examples of this.
    1. earth centered universe
    2. Lysenkoism
    3. continental drift (vs plate tectonics)
    4. phlogiston theory
    5. earth-wind-fire-water
    6. n-rays
    7. steady state universe
    8. young earth theory
    9. creationism

    Do I need to go on?

    Oh that video. No one passed SOLs that worked on that!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    " This is a rather glaring error, equivalent to saying mankind is composed entirely of females. "

    Wait a second... HOLY CRAP!




    "So your saying its a "theorie" and thus not a fact and thus you dont believe in it? But what about this one then?"

    No. That's not what I'm saying. It's close but your missing the all important word "necessarily" between "not" and "a"

    I watched the "sex of babies" video you had, but it was dull and not very informative. It didn't tell me much about the Koran or embryology, it just showed clips of pertaining to each with some unconvincing narrative linking the two. Much like the first link you had. I don't know anything about the Koran, I'm not going to take some dude's words for it. If I cared I would read my own Koran, not just listen to some dude online picking and choosing whichever lines he finds suits his agenda.

    The "creation of man" video was much too long, I don't make a habit of watching random hour long videos, sorry. I would rather read, as my signature says: Unkulunkulu is cooler than you, or in this case, cooler than your propaganda. I have an ear for it, if you want to share what you think PM me or join us in the chat, but don't expect me to be like "mhm, yep, I see, interesting" I'm going to ask you questions and dig until I find the heart, if it has one.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    At least that is how it starts. Because a theory then becomes one of the scientists tools of the trade in order to conduct further scientific inquiry. Each successful application of that tool is an additional piece of evidence and confirmation of the theory. Eventually there is a point of no return when it is inconceivable that the theory could actually be incorrect. Incomplete or an approximation yes, but not incorrect because that history of scientific inquiry where the theory did work all that time cannot be erased.
    You need to understand the words you are using.
    And perhaps you could spend a few years in an educational institution getting a better understanding of the words I am using.


    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Let's see if we can offer counter examples of this.
    1. earth centered universe
    2. Lysenkoism
    3. continental drift (vs plate tectonics)
    4. phlogiston theory
    5. earth-wind-fire-water
    6. n-rays
    7. steady state universe
    8. young earth theory
    9. creationism

    Do I need to go on?
    Apparently you do need to go on, farther and deeper. Most of these are all excellent negative examples of what I am saying. Others examples, like continental drift are examples of just the kind of minor adjustments that all solid theories (those with plenty of evidence like the theory of evolution) undergo as further scientific inquiry is conducted. However in the case of the examples, where the theory makes no predictions and finds no real usefulness in scientific inquiry then it isn't really tool for scientific inquiry but only a tool for education and indoctrination.

    I already discussed the steady state universe which was Einstein's assumption when he adjusted General Relativity to fit this dogma. When observational evidence came against it, he called this the biggest mistake of his life BECAUSE what he COULD have done, was say that his theory predicted that this scientific dogma concerning the steady state universe was wrong.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    And perhaps you could spend a few years in an educational institution getting a better understanding of the words I am using.
    Thanks for the laugh. I needed it. :-D

    I'm astounded that you consider continental drift and other theories a minor adjustment.

    where the theory makes no predictions
    Hardly a theory if no predictions can be made.

    Hmmm. My understanding is that Einstein did not call it his greatest mistake because the steady state theory was the current theory and that theiry was replaced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    I'm astounded that you consider continental drift and other theories a minor adjustment.
    Ok so take the example of continental drift and explain what the big humongus difference is?


    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    where the theory makes no predictions
    Hardly a theory if no predictions can be made.
    Exactly! Not much of a theory and of little use to science. This is why you dug these things out from the earliest history of modern science and before. Creationism is a scientific theory? Only to those who don't want a scienfic theory for the existence of the species and thus who would basically teach theology in the public schools in place of science. And perhaps you would like to explain what the evidence was upon which the steady state universe "theory" was founded? Hmmm? That one could predict something and it did, only the prediction turned out to be wrong. Therefore no accumulation of evidence and no confirmation - as I said, good negative examples of what I was saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Hmmm. My understanding is that Einstein did not call it his greatest mistake because the steady state theory was the current theory and that theiry was replaced.
    You are not making sense to me.

    Are you disputing that he said it or are you disputing the reason I gave for why he said it.

    He said it all right.

    And the reason why is quite obvious to any scientist.

    You said it yourself. A theory that does not predict anything is not much of a theory. He had a big chance to use his theory to predict something and he blew it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Ok so take the example of continental drift and explain what the big humongus difference is?
    For those have not read Wegener book, I did. Bet you haven't Mitch.

    Continental drift supposes that the continents are like boats into the sea. They drift across the earth. In plate tectonics the continents are set into plates that move. The predictions of each mechanism differ. For example, Wegener makes a statement about the southern end of South America which was corrected by the plate tectonics theory.

    Apparently you were not aware of the differences in the theories, the difference in predictions, and that's ... okay.

    his is why you dug these things out from the earliest history of modern science and before.
    Well. These are not that old. Lysenkoism is from the 1940s. N-rays is from the 1910s. Steady state universe ended in the 1960s.

    A theory that does not predict anything is not much of a theory. He had a big chance to use his theory to predict something and he blew it.
    OK. Enlighten me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Eventually there is a point of no return
    So where does this weenie claim come from? Please enlighten all of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Ok so take the example of continental drift and explain what the big humongus difference is?
    For those have not read Wegener book, I did. Bet you haven't Mitch.
    Nope. Not much reason to when you are doing research into theoretical physics.


    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Continental drift supposes that the continents are like boats into the sea. They drift across the earth. In plate tectonics the continents are set into plates that move. The predictions of each mechanism differ. For example, Wegener makes a statement about the southern end of South America which was corrected by the plate tectonics theory.
    Ah I see that may seem like a big thing to a geologist. LOL

    But of course the difference between Newtonian physics and relativity is pretty big too. The mechanics are very different, yes indeed. However the differences between them in the prediction of things that are easily observable differ by what most people would consider only minor details. But the point is that the new theory still has to account for the same evidence that the old theory accounted for and to that extent they are the same. It is why we still teach Newtonian physics.

    You call n-rays a scientific theory, when the claims were never even duplicated? Lysenkoism was a scientific theory? Are you serious? Reread my statement, it was talking about modern science not pseudoscience let alone medeival myth. Do you know the difference?

    The point is that Kuhn's nonsense encourages the daydreams of idiots like creationists and Trekkies that some day everyone will find out that the scientists were wrong. But science doesn't work like that and their daydreams are not realistic.


    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    A theory that does not predict anything is not much of a theory. He had a big chance to use his theory to predict something and he blew it.
    OK. Enlighten me.
    I now think I am wasting my time with you. But, instead of fixing his theory to match the assumption that the universe was steady state, Einstein could have predicted that the universe was not steady state.


    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Eventually there is a point of no return
    So where does this weenie claim come from? Please enlighten all of us.
    I don't know what your weenie problem is. The meaning of my statement is plain.

    The evidence for evolution is overwhelming so there is no return to the idea that the species were created 6000 years ago by divine magic.

    The evidence for relativity is likewise overwhelming so there is return from those conclusions either. Dreams of FTL space ships is science fiction and fantasy only.

    Anyway, let's consider this discussion at an end. I have no interest in you anymore.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Ah I see that may seem like a big thing to a geologist. LOL

    But of course the difference between Newtonian physics and relativity is pretty big too. The mechanics are very different, yes indeed. However the differences between them in the prediction of things that are easily observable differ by what most people would consider only minor details. But the point is that the new theory still has to account for the same evidence that the old theory accounted for and to that extent they are the same. It is why we still teach Newtonian physics.

    You call n-rays a scientific theory, when the claims were never even duplicated? Lysenkoism was a scientific theory? Are you serious? Reread my statement, it was talking about modern science not pseudoscience let alone medeival myth. Do you know the difference?
    The prediction differences between continental drift and plate tectonics are quite different, not minor. Archipelagos are an example.

    N-rays claims were duplicated. They were duplicated by other French scientists leading to nationalistic claims that only French eyes were able to see n-rays.

    Lysenkoism was not medieval. It was modern. It was politically motivated and damaged Soviet scientific progress in the biological sciences.

    Anyway, let's consider this discussion at an end. I have no interest in you anymore.
    Thanks for your condescending comments. Always a pleasure to deal with someone with attitude who lacks knowing the essence of the issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: The Creation of the universe. Science is the way! 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan07
    Regards,
    Alan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Regards
    DL
    Huh?

    Hmm...

    It's probably nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Thanks for your condescending comments. Always a pleasure to deal with someone with attitude who lacks knowing the essence of the issue.
    Yeah, I can appreciate someone who knows what he is talking about, that will condescend to share what he knows.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    You need to understand the words you are using.
    But a condescending hypocrite that obviously does not know what he is talking about is just annoying.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    For ****'s sake, will you two settle down, before I have to wade in and explain why you are both wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    please do john i enjoy your posts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    please do john i enjoy your posts
    Yes on this at least we agree.

    In some kinds of things three is a crowd, but in other things, two cannot stand. Perhaps discussions (and politics?) are like chairs and stools which require at least three legs to stand on because only two views tend to create a distorting polarized and linear understanding as each person focuses on the point that they are trying to make.



    This started when I made the observation that the naive public understanding of the word "theory" doesn't quite cover its meaning in science. Yes it is true that science approaches inquiry into the truth on a provisional basis. But this doesn't quite cover it. It doesn't mean that the theory of evolution or that the theory of relativity are unsubstantiated hypotheses that are in any reasonable supposition going to be proved wrong with some new discovery. I was explaining how this comes about in the operational proceedure of modern scientific inquiry. One new discovery cannot undo the countless others which these theories have facilitated and yes predicted, and yet these creationist pseudo-scientists proceed on such a basis to produce what is nothing more than rhetoric.

    Now I could give a very unflattering description of hokie's response with his list of supposed counter-examples full of myths and pseudo-science. But by all means John step in and give a more fair, balanced and objective description and explanation of the course of this discussion in order to put it back on track. And thanks for the help.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    There are two ways of looking at the character of science that some would see as mutually exclusive. We can welcome Khun's approach, or we can embrace Popper's. Since you've indicated you don't think much of Kuhn I presume you favour Popper. So any theory can be falsified by a single fact or observation. It doesn't matter how often it has been validated, one exception can bring it down. (For you see I don't accept that Newton's theory is an approximation of Einstein at low velocities. I know it is wrong, though perhaps not with any practical applications.) That is where you are wrong.

    hokie, your list of exceptions was simply bizarre. I had no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with those, but they didn't do the job. Perhaps if you wish to revisit them, prefacing that with a clear statement of what you are trying to demonstrate it might make more sense, but at present it reads like disconnected words to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    There are two ways of looking at the character of science that some would see as mutually exclusive. We can welcome Khun's approach, or we can embrace Popper's. Since you've indicated you don't think much of Kuhn I presume you favour Popper. So any theory can be falsified by a single fact or observation. It doesn't matter how often it has been validated, one exception can bring it down.
    I did read Popper and I did like him when I read him, but I don't agree with your interpretation here. It is necessary for a scientific hypothesis to be falsifiable, but I think it is absurd to suppose that if we somehow did manage to prove something to be true beyond possiblity of disproof that it would then become scientifically invalid. Anyway, unlike Kuhn I do see truth in what Popper wrote, but I think it would be an exaggeration to say that I am a Popperian. Furthermore we learn in quantum mechanics that there is a fundamentally statistical nature to physical laws and so from that fact alone we see that anomalies do not bring down a theory, even when we are talking about claims supported by physical evidence.


    Changing the subject slightly...

    I think that the essence of knowledge in general is in how we use it in the living of our lives. By their predictions and application, scientific knowledge has proven itself to be very applicable and even indispensible in the living of our lives. I suppose you could say that this is not true of everyone, and there are a lot of people who would say that it is relgion that is more indispensible in their life, but I think in regards to universality at least, science beats out religion, hands down. The problem with religion is as always, which religion? -- no universality --
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think in regards to universality at least, science beats out religion, hands down. The problem with religion is as always, which religion? -- no universality --
    Then, choose no religion. If the scientific method works so well and universally brings everyone together, while religion does not work and divides us all, why not just forget about religion and concentrate on what works?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think in regards to universality at least, science beats out religion, hands down. The problem with religion is as always, which religion? -- no universality --
    Then, choose no religion. If the scientific method works so well and universally brings everyone together, while religion does not work and divides us all, why not just forget about religion and concentrate on what works?
    Religion and science are different approaches, and to different problems.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    Religion and science are different approaches, and to different problems.
    What problems do religion solve and by what approach?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think in regards to universality at least, science beats out religion, hands down. The problem with religion is as always, which religion? -- no universality --
    Then, choose no religion. If the scientific method works so well and universally brings everyone together, while religion does not work and divides us all, why not just forget about religion and concentrate on what works?
    Religion and science are different approaches, and to different problems.
    I've said it before and will again - religion has had numerous thousands of years to deliver something - anything - of a remotely concrete nature???

    Yet all it has delivered is millions of different ways to interpret a few pages from a book (or books), and/or come up with a never ending supply of fanciful concoctions to make their peculiar 'solution' appear appealing.

    It is about time we called it what it is - a complete but extremely lucrative farce, which is chargeable for actively undermining the only thing that so many people could call their own – the moral integrity of their own mind.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think in regards to universality at least, science beats out religion, hands down. The problem with religion is as always, which religion? -- no universality --
    Then, choose no religion. If the scientific method works so well and universally brings everyone together, while religion does not work and divides us all, why not just forget about religion and concentrate on what works?
    It doesn't make sense to simply let go of religion when you believe in a God, especially when the belief came first before a religion was chosen.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    It doesn't make sense to simply let go of religion when you believe in a God, especially when the belief came first before a religion was chosen.
    What you're saying is that it doesn't make sense to deal with the abuse and results of childhood indoctrination. That's like saying it doesn't make sense to deal with the abuse of childhood molestation.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    Religion and science are different approaches, and to different problems.
    What problems do religion solve and by what approach?
    Hello drowsy, anything yet?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Religion and science are different approaches, and to different problems.
    That is right. Religion may lack universality and objectivity but trying equivocate and conflate this with being of no use to people is absurd. The fact that some people don't understand religion and don't like it does not change the fact that other people find it indispensible in the living of their lives. For billions of people their religion is what makes life worth living. A lot of people don't understand and don't like psychiatry either, but this does not change the fact that it has helped a lot of people. When it comes to things like this science does not have the advantage of universality any more, which makes sense because this is where we find a gaping blind spot in the methodology of science. There can be no objective observation of the observer himself. Perhaps this also explains why so many people have trouble with the theory of evolution. They cannot separate out the objective observation of the evidence that the theory is founded upon from what it seems to be saying about ourselves.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    Religion and science are different approaches, and to different problems.
    What problems do religion solve and by what approach?
    Hello drowsy, anything yet?
    Sorry, your post was just after I went offline, and I've been busy today.

    As an atheist myself, I have never solved a problem through religion, because I can't help but approach it from a scientific angle. However, talk to a religion and they will be able to tell you the prupose of their life, and how everything came into existance, and how they are going to heaven. Are you honestly telling me this does not solve their problems?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    However, talk to a religion and they will be able to tell you the prupose of their life, and how everything came into existance, and how they are going to heaven. Are you honestly telling me this does not solve their problems?
    Well, I could talk to a religion, but it was you who made the claim. And, I don't think you addressed it at all.

    What you've described is the creation of problems from myth and superstition and the finding of answers from myth and superstition.

    Nothing to do with reality and everything to do with fantasy.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    However, talk to a religion and they will be able to tell you the prupose of their life, and how everything came into existance, and how they are going to heaven. Are you honestly telling me this does not solve their problems?
    Well, I could talk to a religion, but it was you who made the claim. And, I don't think you addressed it at all.
    Because I don't agree with the religious approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    What you've described is the creation of problems from myth and superstition and the finding of answers from myth and superstition.
    Archie would have said a similar thing about science. What's your point?

    Science/religion is a matter of opinion.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    When it comes to things like this science does not have the advantage of universality any more, which makes sense because this is where we find a gaping blind spot in the methodology of science. There can be no objective observation of the observer himself.
    Utter nonsense. What does that have to do with anything? Grasping at straws, Mitch.

    Perhaps this also explains why so many people have trouble with the theory of evolution. They cannot separate out the objective observation of the evidence that the theory is founded upon from what it seems to be saying about ourselves.
    Most theists have no clue about evolution, nor care to, and only know through cult propaganda that it conflicts with their god fantasies.

    You're going well beyond stretching the truth, Mitch.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    Because I don't agree with the religious approach.
    You don't appear to know anything about it according to your responses.


    Archie would have said a similar thing about science. What's your point?
    The point is you made a claim and cannot substantiate it.

    Science/religion is a matter of opinion.
    No, science is a methodology, not a matter of opinion.

    You should probably give it up, you're getting nowhere fast.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Science/religion is a matter of opinion.
    What?!!!
    Do you want to retract that, or stick with it and lose a bunch of respect? Your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    What you're saying is that it doesn't make sense to deal with the abuse and results of childhood indoctrination. That's like saying it doesn't make sense to deal with the abuse of childhood molestation.
    No, I said it doesn't make sense to simply let go if a particular religion when you still believe in a God. A theistic religion is supposed to tell you something about the God you believe in and simply going cold turkey from it leaves you with only uncertainty. You have to go through a process, because your religion forms a large part of who you are and have been for however long you have been part of the religion. Religion and the concept of a personal God serves a purpose in one's life after all. Simply cutting it away can almost certainly only bring problems. It is maybe easy for you to imagine doing it, but to a true theist it is not that easy. If we could somehow prove to the whole world that God does not exist, then it will erupt into even worse chaos.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    What you're saying is that it doesn't make sense to deal with the abuse and results of childhood indoctrination. That's like saying it doesn't make sense to deal with the abuse of childhood molestation.
    No, I said it doesn't make sense to simply let go if a particular religion when you still believe in a God. A theistic religion is supposed to tell you something about the God you believe in and simply going cold turkey from it leaves you with only uncertainty. You have to go through a process, because your religion forms a large part of who you are and have been for however long you have been part of the religion. Religion and the concept of a personal God serves a purpose in one's life after all. Simply cutting it away can almost certainly only bring problems. It is maybe easy for you to imagine doing it, but to a true theist it is not that easy. If we could somehow prove to the whole world that God does not exist, then it will erupt into even worse chaos.
    This observation reflects the generic view of the place religion has in the world and mind of the individual. It comes at the issue of indoctrination as if it has one or two positive effects on the adherent, and that we have a case of belief in a mythical ‘God’, or sheer nothingness – resulting in deprivation and confusion.

    Pol Pot and Hitler were not entirely evil and depraved to all. They both presented as loving, generous and fatherly at some point to someone (likely many). So because they were warm and nice, offering them the springboard to unleash their despotism on the world, should we now excuse the enormous resultant debris wrought by their corruption? I think not!

    Similarly all religion presents as ‘good’ at some level, or it would never have gained the monumental foothold it has on our world, however the overall legacy is one of gross deception for billions of indoctrinated and otherwise – all the way to the grave. Clearly it would not be so easy to clear the debris of sacrificed human remains from under this millenniums old tyranny, yet this is no reason for us to permit our eyes to remain closed to the realities that abound.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    A theistic religion is supposed to tell you something about the God you believe in and simply going cold turkey from it leaves you with only uncertainty. You have to go through a process, because your religion forms a large part of who you are and have been for however long you have been part of the religion. Religion and the concept of a personal God serves a purpose in one's life after all. Simply cutting it away can almost certainly only bring problems. It is maybe easy for you to imagine doing it, but to a true theist it is not that easy.
    I see. Thanks for clarifying.

    Most theists have no idea they were indoctrinated into their cult, and would flatly deny such a thing. But, that doesn't preclude the result of indoctrination as it continues to form the worldview of the recipient.

    Theists need to understand they've been indoctrinated, plain and simple, and need the therapy that goes along with it so they may deal with the delusion they've been forced to accept as their reality. It's no different than having to treat an adult who was sexually abused as a child. The facts need to be explained to them, for which a time period of shock and denial would take place, eventually followed by acceptance and treatment.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Science/religion is a matter of opinion.
    What?!!!
    Do you want to retract that, or stick with it and lose a bunch of respect? Your choice.
    Maybe I could phrase it better.

    What I mean is, it's up to the individual what they want to believe, at the end of the day. To try to force them to believe one over the other, or even both, will never work.

    So, in answer to your question, no I would not like to retract my statement. I am a firm believer in free will.

    Just in case I need to retract this statement at a later date, I would like to point out I feel like **** and am having trouble concentrating on ym response
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Theists need to understand they've been indoctrinated, plain and simple, and need the therapy that goes along with it so they may deal with the delusion they've been forced to accept as their reality. It's no different than having to treat an adult who was sexually abused as a child. The facts need to be explained to them, for which a time period of shock and denial would take place, eventually followed by acceptance and treatment.
    As an atheist I can sympathise with this view, but I think that if a religion makes a person happy and he doesn't hurt anyone else, then there is really no reason to take it away from him. Believe it or not, but religion actually does do good from time to time. It has been the influence that has saved countless people from destructive behaviours and enabled them to become more conscientious and productive members of society.

    I maintain that what makes people act in an anti-social way is universal among theists and atheists alike. Religion is more a tool for violence and oppression than the cause, even in religious states like the Taliban used to run.

    By far the best weapon is a proper education that starts at an early age which includes critical thinking skills and an appreciation of the scientific method, but most importantly, children should be taught and encouraged to think empathically about other people. Everything will take care of itself then over time. Ironically a religionist might then call such an education a form of indoctrination, which honestly would not be a wrong interpretation. It is a difficult thing to accuse religious people of indoctrinating their children when they believe they are doing their kids a favour. I mean, if you believed that your kid would go to hell if he did not live according to your religion, would you not indoctrinate him? I would!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    What I mean is, it's up to the individual what they want to believe, at the end of the day. To try to force them to believe one over the other, or even both, will never work.
    Quite obviously though, that has nothing to do with science, which is the key issue with your statement that would see you lumping them together.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I think that if a religion makes a person happy and he doesn't hurt anyone else, then there is really no reason to take it away from him.
    If only that were the case with religion.

    Believe it or not, but religion actually does do good from time to time. It has been the influence that has saved countless people from destructive behaviours and enabled them to become more conscientious and productive members of society.
    I don't believe it. What is actually occurring is that religion is simply taking the place of what is causing the destructive behavior rather than dealing with the problem, similar to a heroin addict's treatment of methadone.

    By far the best weapon is a proper education that starts at an early age which includes critical thinking skills and an appreciation of the scientific method, but most importantly, children should be taught and encouraged to think empathically about other people.
    Well done. Agreed.

    I mean, if you believed that your kid would go to hell if he did not live according to your religion, would you not indoctrinate him? I would!
    Then, I would most certainly ask how it is possible for religion not to harm people when we see this sort of cyclical pattern of fear.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I don't believe it. What is actually occurring is that religion is simply taking the place of what is causing the destructive behavior rather than dealing with the problem, similar to a heroin addict's treatment of methadone.
    Well, if it works, why not? There is no consistently effective way to rehabilitate criminals or anti-social people that I know of. Whatever works should be allowed to have a chance to do so. If you need a crutch (acceptance, understanding, meaning, purpose, security, etc.) to help you out of destructive thoughts and actions and the only thing that can provide it is religion, then I say bring it on. Dealing directly with the problem is most certainly preferable, but religion can be an effective facilitator to this as well.

    I am sure that for some people religion is the only way out of the crap that is their lives. Some people simply cannot fathom what might be a straightforward given to someone else and very often they will never be able to fathom it. Our personalities are formed in the first years of life up to somewhere between 6 and 8 years of age. After this many thought processes and perspectives are forever closed to some.

    Then, I would most certainly ask how it is possible for religion not to harm people when we see this sort of cyclical pattern of fear.
    I understand that you might see it as a pattern of fear. After all, hell or eternal punishment is a pretty potent deterrent, but this is not the way most religious people look at the situation. It is often a position they jump to when confronted, but this is more because the power they think such a point might lend to their position than a reflection on their own reason behind their belief. We are all human after all and respond to social pressures in much the same way. Irrespective of your creed or religious standing, most of us really want to be better people because of the way it makes us and others feel (and from an evolutionary psychology perspective, the benefit harmony brings for you and your group). Fundamentals often claim that morals cannot exist without a God. This is quite obviously nonsense, but it goes the other way two. Religious people do not only live by a moral code because they are afraid of going to hell (though that might serve as a useful tool every now and then, a tool not available to atheists :wink: ) or because they might be put in jail.

    Like I said, to me all the bad things attributed to religion is not necessarily religion's fault per se, but the fault of the negative anti-social tendencies we are all subject to.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I don't believe it. What is actually occurring is that religion is simply taking the place of what is causing the destructive behavior rather than dealing with the problem, similar to a heroin addict's treatment of methadone.
    Well, if it works, why not? There is no consistently effective way to rehabilitate criminals or anti-social people that I know of. Whatever works should be allowed to have a chance to do so. If you need a crutch (acceptance, understanding, meaning, purpose, security, etc.) to help you out of destructive thoughts and actions and the only thing that can provide it is religion, then I say bring it on. Dealing directly with the problem is most certainly preferable, but religion can be an effective facilitator to this as well.
    Yes, but we do eventually take the heroin addict off of methadone.

    Should religion always remain a crutch for that person, forever dominating their worldview, never actually dealing with the source of the problem?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Yes, but we do eventually take the heroin addict off of methadone.

    Should religion always remain a crutch for that person, forever dominating their worldview, never actually dealing with the source of the problem?
    Its not the same thing at all. Unlike your prejudices, chemical dependence can be scientifically established as an illness and the harm it does to people is quite clear. Some people think that homosexuality is a disease, but that does not make it so. Whatever harm that these people imagine homosexuality doing they cannot prove their case in a court of law. There are probably even some people that think that atheism is a disease. Do you want to be "cured"? The rhetoric of bigotry simply isn't enough to act on in a free society. Your prejudice is absolutely no different.

    Some people may indeed choose a homosexual lifestyle because of some trauma or abuse in their childhood but it is frankly nobody's business but their own. So frankly, regardless of what the cause may, it is their life to seek whatever answer to their circumstance that they choose, because the FACT is that letting the bigots force their answers on them does too much harm. Yes, time and time again I have made no secret of the fact, that I believe that religion and homosexuality are basically in the same category.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    There are probably even some people that think that atheism is a disease. Do you want to be "cured"?
    That statement would be coming from those who believe in magic, myth and superstition as reality, and who bad mouth science at every turn, while knowing practically nothing about it.

    The rhetoric of bigotry simply isn't enough to act on in a free society.
    Yet, the bigotry of religion is enough?

    Yes, time and time again I have made no secret of the fact, that I believe that religion and homosexuality are basically in the same category.
    They might be, if people were indoctrinated into homosexuality as children. Or, if homosexuality were geographically oriented, much like religion. Or, if homosexuality caused one to blow themselves up.

    Seems, categorically, they aren't even mildly related, Mitch.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    What I mean is, it's up to the individual what they want to believe, at the end of the day. To try to force them to believe one over the other, or even both, will never work.
    Quite obviously though, that has nothing to do with science, which is the key issue with your statement that would see you lumping them together.
    I.... never sought to lump them together, that I am aware.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    There are probably even some people that think that atheism is a disease. Do you want to be "cured"?
    That statement would be coming from those who believe in magic, myth and superstition as reality, and who bad mouth science at every turn, while knowing practically nothing about it.
    Probably. There is no logical connection, but logic has very little to do with such people.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The rhetoric of bigotry simply isn't enough to act on in a free society.
    Yet, the bigotry of religion is enough?
    Only in a theocracy.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Yes, time and time again I have made no secret of the fact, that I believe that religion and homosexuality are basically in the same category.
    They might be, if people were indoctrinated into homosexuality as children.
    I don't think that you can prove that this is any more or less true of homosexuality than it is of religion.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Or, if homosexuality were geographically oriented, much like religion.
    I don't think that you can prove that this is any more or less true of homosexuality than it is of religion.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Or, if homosexuality caused one to blow themselves up.
    I don't think that you can prove that this is any more or less true of homosexuality than it is of religion, unless you use the usual logic of bigotry that says things like, "I know of a black man who raped a woman, therefore being black causes men to rape women."


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Seems, categorically, they aren't even mildly related, Mitch.
    But I did not say they were related. I said they were in the same category. This is the category of human activities and some would say the category of human lifestyles. Furthermore I think that they should both be protected in a free society by the same principles of relgious freedom.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I don't think that you can prove that this is any more or less true of homosexuality than it is of religion.

    I don't think that you can prove that this is any more or less true of homosexuality than it is of religion.

    I don't think that you can prove that this is any more or less true of homosexuality than it is of religion, unless you use the usual logic of bigotry that says things like, "I know of a black man who raped a woman, therefore being black causes men to rape women."
    I'm not out to prove anything, Mitch. But, it would appear you've made some claims about religion and homosexuality that simply make no sense.

    The bigotry of religion is quite clear, especially with the Abrahamic religions.

    "My religion is right and yours is wrong, therefore you will fry in hell and I will forever be in heaven."

    Look at the blatant bigotry Dayton continuously pushes when he tells us his god will beat up everyone elses god.


    Furthermore I think that they should both be protected in a free society by the same principles of relgious freedom.
    Religions can have their protection if they want, just as long as they keep it behind closed doors. Unfortunately, that isn't the case at all, hence religions should not have any freedoms whatsoever.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I don't think that you can prove that this is any more or less true of homosexuality than it is of religion, unless you use the usual logic of bigotry that says things like, "I know of a black man who raped a woman, therefore being black causes men to rape women."
    Look at the blatant bigotry Dayton continuously pushes when he tells us his god will beat up everyone elses god.
    If think that substantiates your claim then yes that too would be a good example of this "logic of bigotry".


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Furthermore I think that they should both be protected in a free society by the same principles of relgious freedom.
    Religions can have their protection if they want, just as long as they keep it behind closed doors. Unfortunately, that isn't the case at all, hence religions should not have any freedoms whatsoever.
    Yes the homophobes would like to keep all mention of homosexuality behind closed doors. So would "religiophobe" be a good label for your desire to do the same with religion?

    Homosexuality and religion would both have to keep any explicit consensual sexual practices they might have behind closed doors but otherwise freedom of speech is another principle of a free society that keeps people from pushing their phobias and peculiar moral sensibilities on other people to silence them.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes the homophobes would like to keep all mention of homosexuality behind closed doors. So would "religiophobe" be a good label for your desire to do the same with religion?
    You would first have to demonstrate how homosexuality sets standards of morals and ethics for all mankind to follow, what homosexual god we are all supposed to obey and worship, although you'd probably cherry pick from that, too.

    When you do figure out the difference between apples and oranges, give us a shout.

    Homosexuality and religion would both have to keep any explicit consensual sexual practices they might have behind closed doors but otherwise freedom of speech is another principle of a free society that keeps people from pushing their phobias and peculiar moral sensibilities on other people to silence them.
    I don't believe in the censorship promoted by Christianity or other Abrahamic religions as you do. If free speech actually existed in a cult, I'd be a monkeys uncle.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6
    I would like to say that science is the dumbest religion ever invented. How could a man not know of the existence of a God?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheetah
    I would like to say that science is the dumbest religion ever invented. How could a man not know of the existence of a God?
    How could God exist without man to invent him and spread his stories?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheetah
    I would like to say that science is the dumbest religion ever invented. How could a man not know of the existence of a God?
    I could just delete this as an example of the kind of attitude that is not tolerated in this forum and any further such will be deleted. But it is interesting to any objective observers of religion that such attitudes as represented by the second question do exist among the religious. Besides we can respond to the first statement by saying that science is NOT a relgion and we must resist the effort by ignorant detractors (or fans) to turn science into a religion. Then there is the incorrect premise in this comment that science has anything to do with any knowledge about the existence of God. This is absurd as complaining about a computer manual because it does not acknowledge the existence of God. Phew. I have no desire to live in a theocratic society where such imbecilities might be observed.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Is Alan Greatest I Am? He ends post in the same way... and writes sentences in the same way.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    Potholer is the man. The Made Easy series deserves some sort of award
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    It has been quite some time since I compliantly accepted the opinion of others on the basis that doing so is easier than asking a couple of questions - not that I am accusing anyone here of anything less. Even so, this presentation has again left me a little lost, and as I wouldn’t wish to see us treading too closely to that biggest problem of all – myth, I feel the need to seek a couple of (simple) answers to a few (complicated) questions – for a start.

    This video, whilst being an extremely well presented and interesting explanation, actually fails to come close to any answer for the original question; from whence did the three (that a layman can think of) requirements of this theoretical ‘big bang’ originate? In particular;

    1. Some kind of vast amount of gas needed to first come into existence from somewhere that didn't exist, then
    2. Amassed into one location in the vast nothingness that didn’t exist, and
    3. A miraculous spark was somehow needed to be generated in the purity of nothingness that didn’t exist, in order to facilitate the genetic explosion.

    I fail to see how the current explanation of origins comes anywhere near circumnavigating the ongoing religious concept of some kind of humanish ‘creator’, even if such a concept sits well outside anything of a (general) religious hue. Even so, I’m hoping we aren’t about – to become religious over it.

    Again, the religious of our world have forever seen fit to promote an original Creator as some kind of super man-like being – necessarily with some level of physical component to ‘him’, which clearly lacks any sense of compliance with scientific observation – unless the universe we inhabit actually exists inside ‘his’ flesh (but surely we already have enough myth).

    More essentially though, I would ask how it could possibly be that stars/galaxies that currently sit millions of light years away from us (quite a long distance), and are moving faster than we are, could possibly have been part of the same bang of bigness? Surely we really should be all travelling at roughly the same speed - that is *if* we are travelling at all.

    Associated with this query is the question of just how the Doppler effect actually functions in relation to the comparison between an observable, such as sound waves passing through an atmospheric medium such as air, and a far less observable light coursing it’s way through a vacuum such as space. It would appear to me to be entirely different scenarios, which must leave an unanswered question or two.

    The most obvious to a reject being; why wouldn't it be that the surrounding atmosphere acts to compress the sound waves rather than the movement through it? If so, and remembering that light is presumably a very different thing to sound, how exactly does a serious lack of atmosphere (in space) work in a similar manner?

    Furthermore, why has our galaxy, including earth (for instance) cooled down so much quicker, whilst also being part of a much slower moving gathering? It would seem axiomatic to me that the hotter the original portion, the quicker it would burn itself out, rather than the opposite.

    Or perhaps we are travelling on the outside of the expansion, but how could that be, when other stars closer to the bang of bigness are already extinguishing and ours, as yet; has not?

    Also, as I understand it; for anything to burn for a few seconds, much less many billions of years, requires some level of ongoing oxygen supply, so from whence is such being supplied in the vacuum of the known nothingness?

    Hmmmmm So many questions - to spin the head right off an unscientist reject. But there is yet another interesting one - when have we ever witnessed a gas of any description, provided it somehow came into existence in the first place; burn - and leave a residual solid behind?

    I'm hoping my abject ignorance is not showing.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I fail to see how the current explanation of origins comes anywhere near circumnavigating the ongoing religious concept of some kind of humanish ‘creator’, even if such a concept sits well outside anything of a (general) religious hue. Even so, I’m hoping we aren’t about – to become religious over it.
    Yes explanation by intellegent intervention rather than natural law only succeeds in putting the explanation beyond reach in the mind of the creator.


    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Again, the religious of our world have forever seen fit to promote an original Creator as some kind of super man-like being – necessarily with some level of physical component to ‘him’, which clearly lacks any sense of compliance with scientific observation – unless the universe we inhabit actually exists inside ‘his’ flesh (but surely we already have enough myth).
    I don't see where you get that from. The usual declaration is that God is spirit, and the presumption is usually that the spiritual is the foundations of reality and the physical is the artificial construction.


    The rest of your post would belong in the physics section not in scientific study of relgion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I'm hoping my abject ignorance is not showing.
    As Socrates demonstrated, showing an awareness of ignorance puts you ahead in the game.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Some kind of vast amount of gas needed to first come into existence from somewhere that didn't exist

    I agree in the sense that the big bang doesnt explain existance it just tosses the explanation to another period, but non-existance must have some really good PR campain managers because virtually everyone always assumes that non-existance is the de facto status that has to 'be' in the first place and then something happens for existance to occur. How can that be? Even if you have nothing, absolute vaccum is something, not much, not sentient but that lack of existance exists in a fashion, and if a magical superstition-ish deity created the universe "the deity" existed(your just tossing out the reasoning to the next iteration not explaning existance/non-exitance) and if a vast sea of energy and clustered matter cant exist by itself because its so wonderous how the hell can an all powerful being of cosmic super-powers sudenly spring out of nothing, thats even more far fetched than the current universe existing in a form or another.

    So why is the non-exitance bandwagon so full of people? Explain that to me thanks. People ask how can existance be, but virtually no one wonders how can non-exitance be.

    Even zero is, in a sense, the sum of all possible numbers and their opposite(negative), so even zero can be something (and could be everything in an other form/state).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    I agree in the sense that the big bang doesnt explain existance it just tosses the explanation to another period, but non-existance must have some really good PR campain managers because virtually everyone always assumes that non-existance is the de facto status that has to 'be' in the first place and then something happens for existance to occur. How can that be? Even if you have nothing, absolute vaccum is something, not much, not sentient but that lack of existance exists in a fashion, and if a magical superstition-ish deity created the universe "the deity" existed(your just tossing out the reasoning to the next iteration not explaning existance/non-exitance) and if a vast sea of energy and clustered matter cant exist by itself because its so wonderous how the hell can an all powerful being of cosmic super-powers sudenly spring out of nothing, thats even more far fetched than the current universe existing in a form or another.

    So why is the non-exitance bandwagon so full of people? Explain that to me thanks. People ask how can existance be, but virtually no one wonders how can non-exitance be.

    Even zero is, in a sense, the sum of all possible numbers and their opposite(negative), so even zero can be something (and could be everything in an other form/state).
    I like how Brian Greene explained it in his book Fabric of the Cosmos. On the planck scale, time isn't a cohesive thing like it is on the macro scale. Things like "time", "space", and "causation" become as meaningless as the question "Is the number nine happy?". Of course, this is all based on quantum mechanics which almost entirely hypothetical (until our technology improves to the point where we can actually do meaningful experimentation to test our various hypothesis), so take it with a grain of salt.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •