In Addition to "Religion-Good or Bad?" - Freedom of belongin [Archive]

Lardlad95

24th December 2002, 06:18

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:07 am on Dec. 24, 2002
"I think we found the most prejudiced person on this board...hell, even the racist [will] let me sit next to their children at the back of the bus."--Lardlad95

So now I am WORSE than a racist? :shocked:

"If you look at the basis and morals behind most religions...they aren't a bad thing."--BasementAddex, the cop.

Um, which morals are those:

If a son disobeys his father, he shall be put to death.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

A woman taken in adultry shall be stoned to death.

Those who do not accept the pope's authority shall be tortured until they recant, and if they still refuse, shall be burned to death.

Nonbelievers and believers in other religions should be converted or killed.

Anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ shall be hanged.

That's a FINE collection (500BCE to 1750CE) of words to live by, all right. You know, given the historical track record of ALL religions, it is AMAZING that they even have the NERVE to bring up the matter of MORALS.

What is even more incredible is that they've been allowed to GET AWAY WITH IT for SO VERY LONG. It is only in our own era that time is finally starting to run out on these fuckers...WAY OVERDUE!

But, I guess, better late than never. :cool:

RedSTAR there isn't a GodDamn church Synagouge or Mosque that still goes by those rules.

SOme extreme ones may be enforced by the government but thats really really unlikely

You people (including ND) are just using old rules that don't even apply to religion anymore as evidence.

Oh yeah some king back in the 14th century decided that he would persecute people

what the hell does that have to do wit me going to church on sunday?

and again Redstar i ask you

if religion is evil but according to you religion is afabrication how cna a non evil people create an evil religion?

Everythiing you both have said applies to organized religion...old organized religion.

Say organized religion is evil.

Which by the way does some good. Ever heard of the salvation army?

I don't know about you but I was under the impression that they helped people.

Damn please people come up with some new material it's the same regurgitated arguements over and over again.

And redstar you aren't worse than a racist...you are just as bad if you judge people based on their religion

and I already know that you judge people based on ocupation also......

whats next juding people by shoe size?

BasementAddix

24th December 2002, 18:24

like i said...religion has been twisted to fit peoples own personal agendas....if done right and how it was meant to be...theres nothing wrong wih it...

Lysenko

24th December 2002, 19:02

Lardlad, not everything in the world can be linked to racism.

Salvation Army takes most of the funds for itself. Any non religious organization could do what the Salvation army does.

LOL, I will always judge one based on religion. ONe who is religious is easily swayed and mislead. Instead of taking scientific evidence he accepts "God works in mysterious ways." LOL

Lardlad95

24th December 2002, 19:06

Quote: from Lysenko on 7:02 pm on Dec. 24, 2002
Lardlad, not everything in the world can be linked to racism.

Salvation Army takes most of the funds for itself. Any non religious organization could do what the Salvation army does.

LOL, I will always judge one based on religion. ONe who is religious is easily swayed and mislead. Instead of taking scientific evidence he accepts "God works in mysterious ways." LOL

actually I have an uncanny nack for linking things to racism

moving on

Lets please not get into a science vs. religion debate I've been through a great deal of these in the time that I have been to teh forum

I will say this though

Science and religion don't have to go against each other people just make them there are ways that they can work together

also Science still can't exlpain where the universe came from and if you want to read a long boring paper on why science has yet to explain it I will pull out my paper which no one on this forum has the time or patient to read and make a counter arguement to all the arguements

That doesn't mean it's necassarily iron clad but it's like trying to read Kapital...in Klingon

Lardlad95

24th December 2002, 19:13

shit I forgot you already saw that paper never mind

I forgot you were mazdak.

Well i think me and you have already had four or 20 debates on religion....I really don't thik we will persuade the other

I'll just pray for your soul in hell :smile:

redstar2000

24th December 2002, 20:04

"how can a non-evil people create an evil religion"? That's the most clever question that you've asked so far, Lardlad95, and based on a bit of neat wordplay.

Here's what you said: "people are evil, not religion." Here's what you really meant to say: "the people who do evil in the name of religion do not thereby DISCREDIT religion itself."

Here's what I said: "religion is evil, not people." Here's what I really meant to say: "the evil that people do in the name of religion is what DEFINES religion as an entity in the real world."

So it is NOT really a matter of "good" people creating "evil" religion; it is a matter of greedy, ambitious, and rather bloodthirsty people creating a set of beliefs to "justify" what they want to do.

As to the real world origins of religion, I commend to your attention H.L. Mencken's Treatise on the Gods as both an amusing and quite probable account of how we got into this mess.

Were you really under the impression that religion helped people?

The economics of religious charity:

Contribution from believer (sucker)......................$ 1.00

Living Expenses for Clergyman (con-man).............. -.65

Propaganda Expenses (Fund Drives)...................... -.15

Building Fund.............................................. ....... -.10
GIFT TO POOR..... .10

P R A I S E T H E L O R D !

As usual, LL95 declines historical responsibility for the track record of HIS particular church. Essentially, he says that NOBODY does all those bad things any more...so why do we lefties keep bringing it up?

Two reasons: the first is that your track record shows what you WOULD do if you thought you could get away with it. The second is that what you STILL do really sucks!

You STILL try to impose in whatever fashion you can your beliefs about "moral behavior" on the rest of us. You have NO hesitation about getting your moral code into the statute book and sending people to hellish prisons--not for murder or rape or anything clearly evil--but for failing to behave in a way that meets your ridiculous standards...in other words, for SINNING.

Alcohol consumption--SIN! Cigarette smoking--SIN! Marijuana smoking--SIN! Heroin injecting--SIN! Prostitution--SIN! Adultery--SIN! Gambling--SIN! Underage sex--SIN! Gay sex--SIN! Pornography--SIN! Topless dancing--SIN! Abortion--SIN! Birth control--SIN! Teaching evolution--SIN! And the list just goes on and on and on.

Of course, YOUR church might not have ALL these items on THEIR list; but EVERY church has some, most or all of them.

And NONE of them are any of YOUR fucking business!

Now, LL95, as to your shoe size--I promise I will let you off the hook on that one...as long as your feet are still small enough to fit in your mouth. :cheesy:

Lardlad95

24th December 2002, 20:23

Quote: from redstar2000 on 8:04 pm on Dec. 24, 2002
"how can a non-evil people create an evil religion"? That's the most clever question that you've asked so far, Lardlad95, and based on a bit of neat wordplay.

Here's what you said: "people are evil, not religion." Here's what you really meant to say: "the people who do evil in the name of religion do not thereby DISCREDIT religion itself."

Here's what I said: "religion is evil, not people." Here's what I really meant to say: "the evil that people do in the name of religion is what DEFINES religion as an entity in the real world."

So it is NOT really a matter of "good" people creating "evil" religion; it is a matter of greedy, ambitious, and rather bloodthirsty people creating a set of beliefs to "justify" what they want to do.

As to the real world origins of religion, I commend to your attention H.L. Mencken's Treatise on the Gods as both an amusing and quite probable account of how we got into this mess.

Were you really under the impression that religion helped people?

The economics of religious charity:

Contribution from believer (sucker)......................$ 1.00

Living Expenses for Clergyman (con-man).............. -.65

Propaganda Expenses (Fund Drives)...................... -.15

Building Fund.............................................. ....... -.10
GIFT TO POOR..... .10

P R A I S E T H E L O R D !

As usual, LL95 declines historical responsibility for the track record of HIS particular church. Essentially, he says that NOBODY does all those bad things any more...so why do we lefties keep bringing it up?

Two reasons: the first is that your track record shows what you WOULD do if you thought you could get away with it. The second is that what you STILL do really sucks!

You STILL try to impose in whatever fashion you can your beliefs about "moral behavior" on the rest of us. You have NO hesitation about getting your moral code into the statute book and sending people to hellish prisons--not for murder or rape or anything clearly evil--but for failing to behave in a way that meets your ridiculous standards...in other words, for SINNING.

Alcohol consumption--SIN! Cigarette smoking--SIN! Marijuana smoking--SIN! Heroin injecting--SIN! Prostitution--SIN! Adultery--SIN! Gambling--SIN! Underage sex--SIN! Gay sex--SIN! Pornography--SIN! Topless dancing--SIN! Abortion--SIN! Birth control--SIN! Teaching evolution--SIN! And the list just goes on and on and on.

Of course, YOUR church might not have ALL these items on THEIR list; but EVERY church has some, most or all of them.

And NONE of them are any of YOUR fucking business!

Now, LL95, as to your shoe size--I promise I will let you off the hook on that one...as long as your feet are still small enough to fit in your mouth. :cheesy:

Question: when I continually tell you that I am against incarciration for drug use does your ability to read suddenly cease to be?

Religion was never meant to hurt people, people corrupt it.

I don't profess to say that the Bible is flawless if it were I would call it the "Holy" bible I don't profess this for any religious text.

Stalin used "communism" for his personal gain does that make communism evil? and I mean real communism

so if Stalin's perversion of Communism doesn't make communism evil

then how does some preists sick perversion of catholocism make religion evil?

you make automatic assumptions about those who believe in god and group me with fanatics

I think you will find tha I am not like your average believer in God.

unlike you I do not close my mind to all possibilites

which Is why when i read the bible i also read "origins of Species"

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

25th December 2002, 01:57

Religion sucks it's more dangerous than captalism. It leads to the blind following of rules wich some maniac wrote down thousands of years ago. Millions of people suffer today because of it and millions have died because it.

Umoja

25th December 2002, 05:09

Millions of people have died because of White Imperielism, should we kill all white people as a result? I mean look at White peoples track records.....

Then their is Communism! Look at what it did to Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Russia and China! All in such a short time to.....

So, yes, Human evil has messed things up for everyone, and besides the fact, Christianity is a religion that is supposed to take power away from individual states, and unite all people, regardless of their race, sex (Well actually....) or birthplace. Take it as you will, but telling us it's wrong is like having a Capitalist tell you Communism is wrong because of it's track record.

redstar2000

25th December 2002, 12:08

Lardlad95, I am FULLY aware that you personally are opposed to imprisonment of "illegal" drug users...and good for you! Does that mean that your aunt, the cop, is NOT such a "good" person after all...when she's out "busting crackheads"? Also, what about all those other "sins" that believers have made into "crimes"? How long will it be before abortion is once again illegal in the U.S. (except for rich women) thanks to you believers?

Yes, Umoja, your parallel is perfectly accurate. When a communist tells you that religion is evil because of its track record, it is EXACTLY the same as a capitalist telling you that communism is evil because of its track record.

The question is, then: WHO IS TELLING YOU THE TRUTH?

:cool:

Umoja

25th December 2002, 13:33

Who has the right to claim what the truth is?

Lardlad95

25th December 2002, 14:25

Quote: from CCCP on 1:57 am on Dec. 25, 2002
Religion sucks it's more dangerous than captalism. It leads to the blind following of rules wich some maniac wrote down thousands of years ago. Millions of people suffer today because of it and millions have died because it.

millions suffer today? how so?

Lardlad95

25th December 2002, 14:33

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:08 pm on Dec. 25, 2002
Lardlad95, I am FULLY aware that you personally are opposed to imprisonment of "illegal" drug users...and good for you! Does that mean that your aunt, the cop, is NOT such a "good" person after all...when she's out "busting crackheads"? Also, what about all those other "sins" that believers have made into "crimes"? How long will it be before abortion is once again illegal in the U.S. (except for rich women) thanks to you believers?

Yes, Umoja, your parallel is perfectly accurate. When a communist tells you that religion is evil because of its track record, it is EXACTLY the same as a capitalist telling you that communism is evil because of its track record.

The question is, then: WHO IS TELLING YOU THE TRUTH?

:cool:

you say I follow blindly? YOu take anything that communism states as true as true.

You take anything a capitalist says as false.

My Aunt was assigned there, she didn't chose that position. WHy because certain skills that she ahd or didn't determined where she would be best at.

Pre Marital Sex is a "sin" adultery is a "sin" lying is a "sin"

the sky is red, oops i lied ....hey the cops aren't dragging me away.

Don't blame shit on me jsut because I believe in God.

You want a law repealled, take that up with your congressman...not a Rev.

Murder is a sin...but I don't think you need to be religious to think that those who go on killing sprees don't belong walking the streets with knives in their hands.

People have a right to opinion...just because your opinion isn't popular doesn't give you the right to blame everything you don't like on me.

I already told you I don't agree with everthing the curch does

and look at the catholics in AMerica....we go to church out of obligation alot of us don't even believe.

You know where the most devoterd catholics are? Europe, Africa, South america

Not the US

unless you are in the south most people don't take everything in religion to heart so don't go off saying that it's my fault that you can off a fetus.

I'm pro choice by the way

(Edited by Lardlad95 at 2:51 pm on Dec. 25, 2002)

Sasafrás

25th December 2002, 15:01

Personally, I have no problem with religion. I mean, I'm not a religious person myself; however, I do believe that other people have the right to be if they choose. In my opinion, religion is just an ideology, like a political one. Like in politics, religious people try (sometimes, if they are really militant about it) to prove that their ideas are right. We, as communists, socialists, Stalinists, whatever, try to prove how right we are (with our political ideas) as well. And, we have the right to decide for ourselves what we believe is right and what we believe is wrong. We resist religion just as capitalists and other right-wingers resist and deny the legitimacy of leftist thought as a good idea, you know what I'm saying? By attempting to assess whether religion is "good or bad," we're kinda asking whether or not it's cool to have ideas. Sure, to us, religiosity may be the blind following of something that is not real (or, to some of us, something that we're not sure is real), but it's just like our following communism, socialism, anarchy, blah, blah, blah. Cappies think we're following something that's an evil abomination. I think we should just agree to disagree. That is, until some missionary or "gospel-spreader" comes into our faces to "minister" to us. :)

truthaddict11

25th December 2002, 18:50

religous zealots and fundalmentalists have destroyed all what was good in religion. I do believe we MUST stop funding to religious organizations. Many of these just use that money to spread thier hate. There are however religious groups who are pro-choice and pro-gay and are on the left.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

25th December 2002, 19:08

Millions of people suffer from religion:
[list]
Religious conflicts(Palestine, Ireland, Middle-East etc.)
Religious discrimination, in India you have of course the piramide system. People beeing judged on the religion they have(The USA par example)
In the name of "God" a wellknown excuse for maniacs to blow up things and kill ,rape people.
Etc, etc. and etc.

This is why I in favor of banning religion from politics.

(Edited by CCCP at 7:09 pm on Dec. 25, 2002)

Umoja

25th December 2002, 19:25

How would you do that though?

"Your a Jew! No politics for you!"

"In Church you gave to much! You politcal life is outta luck!"

I'm confused by what that means? Church and State are supposed to be seperate, even I think that, so what do you mean by banning?

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

25th December 2002, 20:59

I mean that religious political partys should be banned. Not like the examples you gave.

redstar2000

25th December 2002, 21:40

La Rainbeaux, it is the FACT that "you have no problem with religion" that ALLOWS you to conclude that "we should just agree to disagree."

I "have no problem with" winter sports. Though I wouldn't engage in such uncomfortable, not to say hazardous, activities myself, it does not bother me in the least that others devote thousands of dollars and thousands of hours to such frivolitry.

In other words, we can "agree to disagree" ONLY when we really don't give a shit one way or the other. It is when things MATTER that agreeing to disagree becomes problematical...not to say ABSURD.

For example, consider a small farmer in the mountains of western Virginia in 1859; he says that he "has no problem with slavery" although he neither owns nor plans to buy any slaves...as slaves are uneconomic in mountainous terrain. He might well say to the "flaming abolitionist": "Your arguments may be sensible and even humane--but I think you and the slaveowners should just agree to disagree."

Speaking personally, I do NOT "agree to disagree" with the capitalist class; I am for the destruction of their social order and the total confiscation of "their" loot and plunder. That's NOT negotiable!

I have exactly the SAME view of organized superstition (religion) and its neo-puritanical followers; the total destruction of their "moral laws" and the total confiscation of "their" loot and plunder. I consider them even WORSE than slaveowners because to CHAIN a human mind is even WORSE than chaining a human body.

When I ride the bus and see people cross themselves when the bus passes a church, I feel as bad if not worse than if I had been in the old South and seen a group of slaves in chains being marched to the auction block. Chains of the body can be easily broken off and removed; chains of the mind are made of sterner material (post-Soviet Russia being one of the saddest recent examples).

Lardlad95, I blame NOTHING on you personally...except your unwillingness to face reality and your positive eagerness to find excuses for what is flatly indefensible. I do not mean this in a condescending way (though you'll probably take it that way), but you really do have a hell of a lot to learn...about how politics and religion actually function in the real world. You could begin with some books on Opus Dei, for example.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 2:42 am on Dec. 26, 2002)

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

25th December 2002, 23:18

Wow nice piece I am impressed. But there is a mistake in your piece.

You say that religion is "a chain on the human mind."Wich is true because people don't think for themselfs and blindly follow those rules without knowing why they are supposed to be so good.

But if you forbid religion and destroy it, you are forcing or better said chaining people to think the same way as you do. Religion is in fact nothing more than a way of life(wich is the causer of a lot of damage)

It's better that people abbondon their religion because they are knowledged, than that you force them to not to think a way that you don't like.

The way that you want to force people to change their thoughts is a open gate to a Stalinist nation.

Eventually knowledge is stronger than fear. If you punish and force them to not to believe in "Jezus", "Ten commandments" or any other crap than they will just continue their believes in some barn and their hate against you will grow and grow. Untill someday they had enough of it and overthrow you. This has been shown a lot in human history. History repeats itself, only with small changes".

Umoja

26th December 2002, 02:59

So by definition I don't think for myself Redstar? I only follow one path undyingly and am unwilling to look at other peoples opinions?

Who is to say your opinions are based on logic? You probubly arrived to your conclusions on Atheism yourself, and I arrived to mine on Christianity by myself, and when someone tells me my faith is God is dangerous, I think that their arrogance is dangerous.

Dr. Rosenpenis

26th December 2002, 03:22

Umoja, in this case the question brainwashing comes into question. What is brainwash? Is there such thing? No. Isn't everyone 'brainwashed' in a way? Yes, so therefore I will rule out this invalid train of thought.

With that said, The path you follow was not was not arrived at by yourself, neither was any atheists'. We were all tought by someone, or their opinions were expressed to us and we eventualy made up our minds. Once one accepts Christianity, one must follow Christianity word by word of the bible or whatever your priest or reverend says to you. If you question the values and cannot arrive to a christian answer and then express your issue, that would make you a filthy pagan and not much of a christian. Therefore if you do not follow one of a few paths blindly, you are not really a Christian, unless you're one of thoose people who 'love Jesus' yet are against organized religion and the currently enstaed church.
Yes, you faith in God is dangerous. The bible says that you must hang or convert someone into Christianity. The other person may have been tought to hang you, a bit of a conflict, eh? Over what? Organized superstition.
I can't belive people are STILL following Christianity.

Lardlad95

26th December 2002, 04:49

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:40 pm on Dec. 25, 2002
La Rainbeaux, it is the FACT that "you have no problem with religion" that ALLOWS you to conclude that "we should just agree to disagree."

I "have no problem with" winter sports. Though I wouldn't engage in such uncomfortable, not to say hazardous, activities myself, it does not bother me in the least that others devote thousands of dollars and thousands of hours to such frivolitry.

In other words, we can "agree to disagree" ONLY when we really don't give a shit one way or the other. It is when things MATTER that agreeing to disagree becomes problematical...not to say ABSURD.

For example, consider a small farmer in the mountains of western Virginia in 1859; he says that he "has no problem with slavery" although he neither owns nor plans to buy any slaves...as slaves are uneconomic in mountainous terrain. He might well say to the "flaming abolitionist": "Your arguments may be sensible and even humane--but I think you and the slaveowners should just agree to disagree."

Speaking personally, I do NOT "agree to disagree" with the capitalist class; I am for the destruction of their social order and the total confiscation of "their" loot and plunder. That's NOT negotiable!

I have exactly the SAME view of organized superstition (religion) and its neo-puritanical followers; the total destruction of their "moral laws" and the total confiscation of "their" loot and plunder. I consider them even WORSE than slaveowners because to CHAIN a human mind is even WORSE than chaining a human body.

When I ride the bus and see people cross themselves when the bus passes a church, I feel as bad if not worse than if I had been in the old South and seen a group of slaves in chains being marched to the auction block. Chains of the body can be easily broken off and removed; chains of the mind are made of sterner material (post-Soviet Russia being one of the saddest recent examples).

Lardlad95, I blame NOTHING on you personally...except your unwillingness to face reality and your positive eagerness to find excuses for what is flatly indefensible. I do not mean this in a condescending way (though you'll probably take it that way), but you really do have a hell of a lot to learn...about how politics and religion actually function in the real world. You could begin with some books on Opus Dei, for example.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 2:42 am on Dec. 26, 2002)

I see you judge people on what they don't say as opposed to what they do say.

You don't know what I know, what I've learned, who or what I've read.

I am an avid reader of historical literature. I know alot about religion and politics

for example how the concept of reincarnation and the caste system in Hinduism was used to maintain teh status quo...care to say why this was so?

You are a person that I have grown tos ee jumps to conclusions way to fast.

If you haven't noticed I don't exactley speak in excess, I only answer the question at hand instead of making bogus asumptions about people and speak in excess of that which doesn't even answer the other persons areguements...like some who shall remain nameless

and yes for once I am claiming the previous as a personal attack on your being seeing as how you ability to make assumptions about me never falters even when you lack the knowledge to back it up.

You claim I cant face reality?

What is reality? THe only reality we know is what we percieve.

Perceptions change, ie. reality changes

300 BC it was reality that the world was flat

1700 AD it was reality that Black People were iferior to whites.

Where is that reality now? It no longer exist.

What you should have said is that I can't face your reality

which I percieve to be false, there fore to me it isn't reality.

Until you can give me concrete evidence that God doesn't exist then your reality is still false to me.

You cant tell me that you are right and simply believe that I will accept it.

Atleast I have a legitamite reason ( me being the judge on legitimization) for believing in God, you may not find it legitamite....thats fine...but I'm not asking you to accept it as fact.

You on the other hand want to shove your own perceptions down my throat something I and possibly everyone else on teh planet simply can't do.

If I find excuses for teh flatly indefensible then you don't even do that much.

As far as arguements go Atheist have got to be the worst with developing original ideas.

Hell even Jim jones could convince people....all you guys do is read from a standard list of atheist answers.

evolution, big bang, you caan't see God.

Atleast I can interpret the Bible, Quran, Tora and come up with arguements I find true for my self.

I have talked to a grea deal of Atheist and it sounds like you are all just plaing back a recording.

And whats worse you are so condesending towards the religious

What makes that so bad is that you have about as much tangible evidence as we do.

I can't bring you God...but you can't prove that he doesn't exist.

Then what do you guys do? Bring up certain indescrepinsies in teh "Holy Texts" as if that is some kind of real evidence.

I will give you this chance right now...if you can give me absolute conrete evidence that there is no God, there never was a God, there will never BE a God, I will go to a church and piss in the holy water during service, I will tape it and mail ti to you.

I give you my word as a man that I will do this.

I solemnly vow before all who read this text, that I Aaron Jose Curet Rodriguez age 14 of sound mind have come into this contract with one RedStar2000 and those who that name represents in which provided the UNDENIBLE TRUTH THAT THE LORD ALL MIGHTY, JEHOVA, ALLAH, BUDDHA, Yaweh, Jah, and or Jesus Christ does not, has not, and or will not exist will go to the NEAREST Chruch within my proximity with a video recording device and during one chruch service I will Urinate in a bowl of HOLY WATER and send to Redstar2000 and all who are represented by that name. I HOLD ALL THOSE READING THIS TEXT AS MY WITNESS along with the LORD wheter he exists or not.

There we go...now please if you will the evidence.

But I guarentee that you will not.

And please do not steal Peaccenickeds old mathmatical proof bullshit because it is just that...bullshit...

Go ahead with the proof.

ANd please don't reply asking me for proof of God, I have no need what so ever to prove his existence to you...that is an inner choice, to believe or not.

By the way...you dont know everything I've learned or everything I've read, but if what you say is true and I need to learn more, I guaruntee you wont be the one to teach me.

Lardlad95

26th December 2002, 05:03

Quote: from CCCP on 11:18 pm on Dec. 25, 2002
Wow nice piece I am impressed. But there is a mistake in your piece.

You say that religion is "a chain on the human mind."Wich is true because people don't think for themselfs and blindly follow those rules without knowing why they are supposed to be so good.

But if you forbid religion and destroy it, you are forcing or better said chaining people to think the same way as you do. Religion is in fact nothing more than a way of life(wich is the causer of a lot of damage)

It's better that people abbondon their religion because they are knowledged, than that you force them to not to think a way that you don't like.

The way that you want to force people to change their thoughts is a open gate to a Stalinist nation.

Eventually knowledge is stronger than fear. If you punish and force them to not to believe in "Jezus", "Ten commandments" or any other crap than they will just continue their believes in some barn and their hate against you will grow and grow. Untill someday they had enough of it and overthrow you. This has been shown a lot in human history. History repeats itself, only with small changes".

THIS is an attack on redstars statement not you CCCP

I believe in god...I am "religious" though I don't attend regular church service. However I assure you that me and the Pope arent peas in a pod

1. I am pro pre marital sex

2. I am pro abortion choice

3. I am pro contraception

4. I am anti evangelism

5. I'm not christian, I'm not muslim, I'm not Jewish, I'm not a Rasta, I'm not a Buddhist....but I'm all five at the same time.

6. I do not take the bible as the undenible truth

7. I don't take the Quran as the undenible truth

8. I don't take the tora as the undenible truth

9. I don't believe only the religious can reach heaven

10. I don't believe in a physical hell

11. I don't believe that God intereferes in our lives

12. I don't even believe that God gets so angry at miniscule sins

13. I'm not sure is Jesus is the son of God or if he was a prophet, or if he was a lunatic, or if he was a crook (I don't really consider te latter two I just needed them for effect)

14. I belive that one doesn't necasarrily need to worship God in the way the chruch lays out.

In words...I have no religion but I have several.

Each religion brings something to the table that the other doesn't...

Buddhist concepts of inner peice

the Teacheings of Christ and Muhammed, of Moses

Rasta concepts of peace and love

That doens't mean that I just created a new religion but I don't rule anything out.

I don't believe in reincarnation, I don't believe that Halie Salsie was God on earth

but if you read about each you will notice the similarities.

I learned to study religion for myself.

If medatation like Buddhist do brings you inner peace then can't it bring you closer to God?

and how come more Christians don't realize the Muslims belive that Jesus was teh messiah...he just wasn't teh son of God.

The concepts are right....but the organization is wrong.

If it wasn't for the fact that I feel a need to search for inner peace I'd be a deist and just be like "hell with it"

do you know what deism is? If not i suggest you look into it.

if you do know I would think you would hate them less than people who go to chruch.

In short what I'm trying to say is that the religious aren't brainwashed. I cna thnk for myself...so can others

redstar2000

26th December 2002, 11:58

While I think there would be a definite MARKET for your video tape on the internet, LL95, it really doesn't appeal to me AT ALL---I believe there are certain "art" galleries in Manhatten that would DEFINITELY be interested. :cheesy:

I remind you once again that in scientific thought the burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive assertion about the real world.

You: There is a God!

Me: Prove it!

You: Provide EVIDENCE for the existence of God.

No positive assertion about reality can be accepted without evidence UNLESS one is willing to abandon REASON altogether. You have NO EVIDENCE nor does anyone else.

The fact that you've put together your own personal combination of superstitions does NOT show that you "think for yourself"--it simply shows that you are not adverse to borrowing whatever you think "useful" from more than one religion. It has no more significance than if you asserted that one could be a good catholic and also believe in astrology...as indeed, many popes did.

Finally, please note that what I said was that "you have a great deal to learn about how politics and religion FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD." It's all well and good to perceive the relationship between the Hindu religion and the caste system in that unhappy land...but WE live in the United States under late monopoly capitalism: what is the SOCIAL ROLE of religious institutions and religious belief NOW?

(And to suggest, as you did, that if I am unhappy with a law that I should "write my congressman" betrays an appalling ignorance of the political realities of American "democracy".)

I am under no illusion about my "ability" to "teach" you anything at all; I KNOW my limitations. Besides, you've made it clear (at GREAT length) that religion is not a matter up for questioning as far as you are concerned; the details of faith are debatable, the "certainty" of "God's" existence is not. Thus the only PRACTICAL advice I can offer to you: PLEASE, whatever you do, DON'T GIVE THEM ANY OF YOUR MONEY!

--------------------------------

Umoja, just what does it mean to "think for one's self?" If you grow up in a culture permeated with various and sundry religions, does "picking" a favorite REALLY constitute "thinking for one's self"? If you go to the religion section of a large public library, you will find hundreds, perhaps even a thousand or more books promoting one or another religion...you MIGHT find a dozen or two that are CRITICAL. How much of the CRITICAL biblical scholarship have YOU read, Umoja? And if you haven't read the criticisms, how can you claim that you chose christianity as a result of independent thinking?

-----------------------------------

CCCP, I have NO interest in "forcing" people NOT to be religious...except through appeal to knowledge, experience, argument, and reason. Since we can't see inside people's heads, nothing else would work anyway.

What CAN be done, at least in a communist society, is to KEEP IT OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE. No religious political parties, no religious architecture, no public religious ceremonies. Prayer, like defecation, is something to be done in private...and you should wash your hands afterwards.

Beyond that, we can only HOPE that people who are now religious will eventually come to their senses and see reason. History is encouraging, but NOTHING is certain...and it is always possible that we are really in for a new "dark age of faith" once more. So, the struggle continues.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:14 pm on Dec. 26, 2002)

Umoja

26th December 2002, 16:03

I was actually planning on picking up "Atheism- The Case Against God" to be perfectly honest, after I get done with a few other books.

Ari HR

26th December 2002, 18:06

This has gone way too far, but I'll say it anyway:

"Religion is an opium to people" - Karl Marx

P.S. There are few extreme right religious parties down my street, so baning such organizations from being founded is quite a good idea.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

26th December 2002, 18:38

CCCP, I have NO interest in "forcing" people NOT to be religious...except through appeal to knowledge, experience, argument, and reason. Since we can't see inside people's heads, nothing else would work anyway.

What CAN be done, at least in a communist society, is to KEEP IT OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE. No religious political parties, no religious architecture, no public religious ceremonies. Prayer, like defecation, is something to be done in private...and you should wash your hands afterwards.

Beyond that, we can only HOPE that people who are now religious will eventually come to their senses and see reason. History is encouraging, but NOTHING is certain...and it is always possible that we are really in for a new "dark age of faith" once more. So, the struggle continues.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:14 pm on Dec. 26, 2002)

Ban out of politics ,not out of public life. They will continue on practising their believes and isolate themselfs. Now you have created a hardcore Christian, Muslim, Jew and other crap community.

Their hatred against you (the ruler) will grow day by day. They(5billion believers) will feel themselfs oppressed. They won't listen to you and like I said isolate themselfs in their religion. And never doubt it.

Religious rells. After isolation follows of course rioting. Fights between Christian and Muslim groups/neighbourhoods.

Rumors grow and then a revolution will follow. Of course the different religions don't want to life with each other and make different states(nationalism).

Wich brings us back to basic.

(Edited by CCCP at 6:45 pm on Dec. 26, 2002)

redstar2000

26th December 2002, 19:45

CCCP, you seem to be envisioning a situation where a small group of "dictators" issue decrees that ban religion from politics or public life altogether. That is NOT what I have in mind.

First of all, there will be NO communist revolution in any meaningful sense of the word UNTIL religion is already widely discredited. The E.U. is farthest along this road, which is why I expect the E.U. will BE the first real communist "nation".

Next, I expect measures to remove religion from public life to be WIDELY debated and DEMOCRATICALLY approved by OVERWHELMING majorities.

The minority of believers, like the minority of ex-capitalists, will INDEED feel outrageously OPPRESSED. Just as the capitalists have lost their capacity to gain wealth by exploiting workers, the god-mongers will have lost the opportunity to impose their values upon public life while attracting new suckers.

But it will not matter what they "think". If they engage in counter-revolutionary violence, they will suffer unpleasant consequences. If they want to ***** to each other on the internet, I don't care.

And in the end, they and their absurd doctrines will be of interest only to historians.

:cool:

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

26th December 2002, 20:15

I myself am in favor of a religious free world. But consider that there are 4 or 5 billion religious people who will protest against you for the sake of "God". I think that religion can only be exterminated if there are widely debates over it. By the people themselfs. If you do that, people will start questioning if their believes are true and soon you will see that churches, mosq's and other crap start to empty. You can never make the world religious free in 1 generation, because it's the generation who are thought since their excinstence that there is a "God" wich they should fear.

Lardlad95

26th December 2002, 22:50

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:58 am on Dec. 26, 2002
While I think there would be a definite MARKET for your video tape on the internet, LL95, it really doesn't appeal to me AT ALL---I believe there are certain "art" galleries in Manhatten that would DEFINITELY be interested. :cheesy:

I remind you once again that in scientific thought the burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive assertion about the real world.

You: There is a God!

Me: Prove it!

You: Provide EVIDENCE for the existence of God.

No positive assertion about reality can be accepted without evidence UNLESS one is willing to abandon REASON altogether. You have NO EVIDENCE nor does anyone else.

The fact that you've put together your own personal combination of superstitions does NOT show that you "think for yourself"--it simply shows that you are not adverse to borrowing whatever you think "useful" from more than one religion. It has no more significance than if you asserted that one could be a good catholic and also believe in astrology...as indeed, many popes did.

Finally, please note that what I said was that "you have a great deal to learn about how politics and religion FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD." It's all well and good to perceive the relationship between the Hindu religion and the caste system in that unhappy land...but WE live in the United States under late monopoly capitalism: what is the SOCIAL ROLE of religious institutions and religious belief NOW?

(And to suggest, as you did, that if I am unhappy with a law that I should "write my congressman" betrays an appalling ignorance of the political realities of American "democracy".)

I am under no illusion about my "ability" to "teach" you anything at all; I KNOW my limitations. Besides, you've made it clear (at GREAT length) that religion is not a matter up for questioning as far as you are concerned; the details of faith are debatable, the "certainty" of "God's" existence is not. Thus the only PRACTICAL advice I can offer to you: PLEASE, whatever you do, DON'T GIVE THEM ANY OF YOUR MONEY!

--------------------------------

Umoja, just what does it mean to "think for one's self?" If you grow up in a culture permeated with various and sundry religions, does "picking" a favorite REALLY constitute "thinking for one's self"? If you go to the religion section of a large public library, you will find hundreds, perhaps even a thousand or more books promoting one or another religion...you MIGHT find a dozen or two that are CRITICAL. How much of the CRITICAL biblical scholarship have YOU read, Umoja? And if you haven't read the criticisms, how can you claim that you chose christianity as a result of independent thinking?

-----------------------------------

CCCP, I have NO interest in "forcing" people NOT to be religious...except through appeal to knowledge, experience, argument, and reason. Since we can't see inside people's heads, nothing else would work anyway.

What CAN be done, at least in a communist society, is to KEEP IT OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE. No religious political parties, no religious architecture, no public religious ceremonies. Prayer, like defecation, is something to be done in private...and you should wash your hands afterwards.

Beyond that, we can only HOPE that people who are now religious will eventually come to their senses and see reason. History is encouraging, but NOTHING is certain...and it is always possible that we are really in for a new "dark age of faith" once more. So, the struggle continues.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:14 pm on Dec. 26, 2002)

Can you prove that I'm not a four foot tall GI Joe who was brought to life by a magical fairy?

Probably not...atleast from where you are sitting now

Can I prove to you that I am? probably not from where I'm sitting

Thats how this debate with God will go.

neither of us has the evidence to prove their point.

The burden of proof relies on both of us, especiall you since you claimed that what you believe is the absolute truth.

if it is the absolute truth then how come you can't prove it?

Thats the diffenrece between you and me my excessively conceited friend.

I never claimed the absolute truth. I claimed my own interpretation of the truth..waht is true for me

Since you are not me this wouldn't more than likely wouldn't be your truth.

I am not here to convert you to a christian and make you pay to the evil capitalist church,

What I'm here to do is to make it blatantly clear that you don't have any proof what so ever that God doesn't exist.

When you continually claim that you are right but you can't prove why it makes you look like a liar.

I have not, nor will I ever claim to be 100% sure of anything, only fools are positive.

I have an indea, I have a belief that I feel strongly for but I'm not going to go around like I know absolutely everything.

How can you be sure of anything? Are you ominipotent? Do you know everything? But of course you can't be because those are God like qualities and God doens't exist according to your all knowing belief system.

You say no positive assertion on reality can be taken without evidence....ok.

GOd does not not exist

bam now i'ts a negative....so I'm right now...

Because a second ago you were on the negative and you didn't need evidence.

I suggest you find a debate tournament and watch until you learn that noth sides neeed evidence

because either you are holding your evidence which reveals the absolute truth or you don't have it.....which one?

God's existence is something that one must take for yourself...you can't accept what others tell you.

If you feel there is a spiritual side to reality...good for you

if you don't...thats great

however don't claim that you are the absolute definitive authority on God's existence if you can't back it up.

Remeber I never claimed that I couuld prove God's existence...so really I don't have to bring you even a sentence pertaining to the evidence.

I could certainly make an arguement for it...but it would still be open to interpretation.

Finally

How religion functions in teh real world...hmmm lets see

Catholocism: an overly oprresive psudo empire which has billions under the control of one figure...more than likely generates billions in tithings in a year...Committed horrible atrocities, including support of the slave trade, and teh holocaust. Corrupts what the "holy" bible is supposed to be about yet for some reason doesn't get the real messege across. Is opposed to several things which could better human rights. particularyly contraception which could go a along way to stop unwanted pregnancies. Not to mention the catholic influence on africa has helped to spread the aids epidemic

Protestants: Other branch of CHristianity which claims to be pureer than catholics but in reality has lead to some of the more ignorant indviduals and closed minded people of the past few centuries...hence Jerry Fallwell. Also oppsoed to many similar things that catholics are. Sucks money for it's own benefeits from it's parishoners. Alot of the members are closed minded to other suggestions both religious and secular.

Judaism: Not as powerful as it once was however stiull opressive to several people. isreal for example refused the entry of Etheopian Jews who wanted to return to teh jEwish homeland...opression by race...purging of early Christian Church

Islam: A better religion than most would assume...however alot of the teachings that are harsh are harsher than alot of other religions. For example execution of homosexuals, slaves, polygymy

There we go your big three...and what does this all link to? the almighty $$$ corruption within organized religion has allowed people to steal teh money of the unsuspecting

Politics in teh real world

USA: a supposed representive democracy that is in fact a two party dictatorship both parties share alot of ideals but lie to appeal to different sectors. Smaller third parties are excluded form Presidential debates. Leftist parties are ostracized. Minorites are excluded to keep teh status quo where the white political leaders are living comfortably....

Want any other exaimened?

By the way...what is wrong with buddhism? The only money that is taken goes directly form your pocket to teh charity...there is no heirchy......I really see no problem.

redstar2000

27th December 2002, 14:59

LL95, I'm being forced to the conclusion that you are hopelessly confused in your opinions...to the point where any kind of discussion becomes nearly impossible. From one post to the next, you assert contradictary ideas...how am I or anyone supposed to respond?

Example: you try to get your policewoman aunt off the hook for her fascist social role--busting "crackheads"--by implying that she's "only carrying out her orders to enforce the law" and then suggesting that if I don't like the law, I should write my congressman. AND THEN, you admit that such a letter would be totally INEFFECTIVE.

Example: you attend a catholic church that's full of racist white republicans AND you admit that the church as an institution is both greedy and repressive...BUT it is still somehow "ok" for you to go there. Is that a GLARING contradiction or WHAT?

LL95, I do not HAVE to prove that nonexistent things or entities don't exist. The "burden of proof" is NOT equally divided between nonbelievers and believers...it is ON believers because it is the believers who are making a positive assertion about the nature of the universe.

For example: most cosmologists today endorse the "big bang" theory of the origins of the universe. It would be fair and appropriate for you to demand that THEY provide evidence for their theory--there is some; in my opinion, not yet enough.

Today, ALL reputable scientists endorse the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, you are entitled to ask for evidence...and they will supply it to you BY THE TON.

You see, I can't "prove" a negative and, in logical theory, some have argued that negatives can NEVER be conclusively proven. I can't "prove" that ghosts do not exist; I can't "prove" that astrology is false; I can't "prove" that the supernatural is a purely imaginary concept.

But I don't HAVE TO. The burden is on those who postively assert that such things are true; THEY are the ones who must produce the evidence...and THEY CAN'T DO IT! Because there is none.

I'm glad you recognize how futile it would be to try and convert me into some kind of religion-junkie. But when you argue for a purely subjective definition of truth--"God is real for ME"--aren't you simply abandoning the process of reason altogether?

Some guy says "I worship Britney Spears because, TO ME, she is the goddess of love"--does that MAKE SENSE?

Some girl says "I worship Sean Penn because, TO ME, he is the god of wisdom"--does that MAKE SENSE?

Of course, I can't criticize your "inner truth"--there's NO criteria, no basis, no foundation on which a discussion could rest. You could, in your inner world, indeed "BE" a 4-foot tall G.I. Joe doll...I wouldn't have ANY WAY TO TELL. I could SAY something like: gee, you don't look like one to me--but what impact could that possibly have on your inner conviction that is beyond reason?

One small point: THIS kind of argument is rather different from the rituals of "debate" that take place in an academic setting...one observes certain scholastic formalities and the outcome has only to do with the self-esteem of the debaters.

What I am talking about is the future of human society, something rather more important. :cool:

Lardlad95

27th December 2002, 21:23

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:59 pm on Dec. 27, 2002
LL95, I'm being forced to the conclusion that you are hopelessly confused in your opinions...to the point where any kind of discussion becomes nearly impossible. From one post to the next, you assert contradictary ideas...how am I or anyone supposed to respond?

Example: you try to get your policewoman aunt off the hook for her fascist social role--busting "crackheads"--by implying that she's "only carrying out her orders to enforce the law" and then suggesting that if I don't like the law, I should write my congressman. AND THEN, you admit that such a letter would be totally INEFFECTIVE.

Example: you attend a catholic church that's full of racist white republicans AND you admit that the church as an institution is both greedy and repressive...BUT it is still somehow "ok" for you to go there. Is that a GLARING contradiction or WHAT?

LL95, I do not HAVE to prove that nonexistent things or entities don't exist. The "burden of proof" is NOT equally divided between nonbelievers and believers...it is ON believers because it is the believers who are making a positive assertion about the nature of the universe.

For example: most cosmologists today endorse the "big bang" theory of the origins of the universe. It would be fair and appropriate for you to demand that THEY provide evidence for their theory--there is some; in my opinion, not yet enough.

Today, ALL reputable scientists endorse the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, you are entitled to ask for evidence...and they will supply it to you BY THE TON.

You see, I can't "prove" a negative and, in logical theory, some have argued that negatives can NEVER be conclusively proven. I can't "prove" that ghosts do not exist; I can't "prove" that astrology is false; I can't "prove" that the supernatural is a purely imaginary concept.

But I don't HAVE TO. The burden is on those who postively assert that such things are true; THEY are the ones who must produce the evidence...and THEY CAN'T DO IT! Because there is none.

I'm glad you recognize how futile it would be to try and convert me into some kind of religion-junkie. But when you argue for a purely subjective definition of truth--"God is real for ME"--aren't you simply abandoning the process of reason altogether?

Some guy says "I worship Britney Spears because, TO ME, she is the goddess of love"--does that MAKE SENSE?

Some girl says "I worship Sean Penn because, TO ME, he is the god of wisdom"--does that MAKE SENSE?

Of course, I can't criticize your "inner truth"--there's NO criteria, no basis, no foundation on which a discussion could rest. You could, in your inner world, indeed "BE" a 4-foot tall G.I. Joe doll...I wouldn't have ANY WAY TO TELL. I could SAY something like: gee, you don't look like one to me--but what impact could that possibly have on your inner conviction that is beyond reason?

One small point: THIS kind of argument is rather different from the rituals of "debate" that take place in an academic setting...one observes certain scholastic formalities and the outcome has only to do with the self-esteem of the debaters.

What I am talking about is the future of human society, something rather more important. :cool:

First of all I wasn't trying to get my aunt of the hook. I don't think those people on drugs whould be incarcirated. I was explaining why she was in such a position.

Oh yeah I forgot one important fact...I don't attend that chruch anymore. Thats on me I should have told you....ohwait I did tell you that I don't attend chruch anymore...so maybe thats both our fault. I withheld information and you dn't fully read posts.

I think you are confused with something...did I ever claim that I could prove that God existed?

No...I didn't. But if you want I will...at the end of this thread. and I remind you this sin't iron clad it's a theory.

Fine if you aren't willing to be negative I give you the affirmative damn it.

You Affirmative: God Does Not exist

me engative: god does not not exist.

Can you argue it now?

PLease continue with your circumventing arguements

Though I see no point seeing as how you even stated your self that you can't prove that God doesn't exist. So how cna you be sure?

Thats your problem you are sure of things you can't prove. You can't even bring up a fuckin counter arguement

You were were on the affirmative from the begining. You claimed the absolute truth...so if it is prove it then.

Your inability to prove your statement is amazing especially since you seem to look down on the religious.

Also when you said it's good that I realized that it was futile to try and convert you...why must you always sound condencending?

I didn't decide after many attempts. I Never even planned on trying.

I suggest you read "The Dispensational truth" for the religious exxplanation to evolution

I believe in Evolution, I don't deny the existence of earlier hominids however who says that proves that God doesn't exist?

Now I will go ahead and give an arguement denouncing the whole big bang theory

because you are incapable of proving the absolute truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

the only way that the Universe at its core begining is of cause and efect would be an oscilatting universe.

IE. Big Bang, expand, expand, expand, Contract, contract, coontract, Big Crunch, Big Bang, expand, expand, expand, contract, contract, contract, Big Crunch, Big Bang.

However ask most physicists and they will tell you the theory of a contracting or oscialting universe isn't very likely.

The universe doesn't and will not have enough matter to contract on its self.

And even if it did the weight of the universe is to vastly spread out.

The weight isn't held in a center location. It expands from the outside even further.

Now if it sread from the center out then the cause and effect of the universe would be complete.

However since their is no possible way for the universe to contract then it can't oscillate.

Then the big bang had to be caused by some other force. The matter had to be created some other way.

The matter cannot be infinite, because there is no other possibility for how the matter came into existence.

Explosions don't happen for no reason at all. And the only possibility I can come up with is that deep with in the matter a reaction occured when one type of matter came in contact with another.

But that only suggest how the explosion occurd but there is no explation of how the matter came into being.

Not to mention how can matter so tiny or large (depend on what stage of the universe you look at) exist within its self?

It has to reside insome thing. THen you must ask your self what does this matter that the Universe resides in, where does it reside.

There always must be something, and to suggest that it resides with in its self is a concept that promotes GOd.

No matter which way you turn the concepts have some concept that is similar to that of God.

God: exists within himself

God: is infinite, has no begining or no end.

Isn't that really the concept of infinity? People assume infinity just means that the numbers continue on forever.

But that isn't just it. Numbers continue on forever negativley also.

No begining or no end= God.

THe highest number you can think of there is also a negative equivilant.

However numbers are a concept, they can continue on forever and ever forwards and backwards.

Matter however can't. Matter does not just exist for the sake of existing it is cause and effect.

Only some that needs no cause and effect GOd, another concept can create something that needs cause and effect.

Before the concepts of numbers was created it was still infinite.

Before we knew the Earth revolved around the sun, the earth still revolved around the sun didn't it?

So how can an infinite concept like God be so farfetched?

Did we need to believe in him for him to exist if he truly is infinite?

And did we need to create numbers for them to be infinite?

Matter is only partially infinite. It needs a starting point. Shown in the diagram.
God(A concept)
Has no Starting point, or needs of one.
<------------------------------------------------------------------->
Numbers(A concept)
Continues on in either direction forever.
<------------------------------------------------------------------->

Universe(Matter)
While the universe expands in all directions that is only because it is three dimensional. It still has a center which does not expand, the center is the same as it was when the universe was small. Since it is matter it cannot continue infinetly in all forms. Matter cannot contract and expand at the same time.
o---------------------------------------->

To be infinite you must be able to expand and contract at the same time, endless.

Matter can not Expand and contract at the same time its impossible.

The universe cannot exist within its self then.

The universe isn't infinite, it was created at its core begining.

(Edited by Lardlad95 at 9:25 pm on Dec. 27, 2002)

redstar2000

28th December 2002, 00:11

LL95, did you get the Hawking book for christmas? I ask because I'm really NOT competent to argue cosmology with you.

It would be interesting to me to KNOW "for certain" how the universe "began", but it's not a matter of pressing urgency. My IMPRESSION is that cosmology is in VERY ragged shape right now...it might be another century or even longer before humans "KNOW" for sure how it all happened.

Scientist Joke: "Cosmologists are often wrong...but NEVER uncertain." :cheesy:

LL95, you ought to know that I NEVER claimed to be in possession of "absolute truth" (whatever that is) about anything. Nevertheless, there IS ordinary truth and falsehood which I and everyone can easily grasp.

Lack of oxygen is fatal to mammals. Excess rainfall results in floods. An automobile engine will not run without a source of fuel. And so on. Any ordinary proposition about real life can easily be demonstrated if proof is desired.

That is NOT the case with ALL assertions relating to the "supernatural". Can YOU change water into wine? Can YOU heal the sick and raise the dead? Can YOU even levitate...just a little? Do YOU know anyone who's ever done ANY of these things in your presence, under conditions that ruled out fraud?

There's a line in one of Shakespeare's plays: a character boasts "I can call upon the mighty spirits of the deep!" To which another character responds: "Why, so can I and so can any man. The question is, when you call, WILL THEY COME?"

If the "spiritual truths" of religion have NO contact with the ordinary truths that people can learn and understand, in what sense then are they "true" at all? What "good" are they?

If "peace of mind" is what you seek, alcohol, marijuana, and heroin are ALL more reliable; they work EVERY TIME and it's well understand WHY they work every time (has to do with molecules that bind to certain reception points on brain cells). An ordinary truth...with an ordinary material (chemical) explanation.

So it is, I think, with EVERY "truth" that religion claims to bring to the table: unverifible, unreliable, and unproven after thousands of years and thousands of variations.

I can but repeat the wise words of that old British utilitarian: "When I am told that Jesus rose from the dead, two things occur to me. The first is that I have never known a man to rise from the dead. The second is that, sadly, I have OFTEN known men to LIE."

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:16 am on Dec. 28, 2002)

Lardlad95

28th December 2002, 02:09

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:11 am on Dec. 28, 2002
LL95, did you get the Hawking book for christmas? I ask because I'm really NOT competent to argue cosmology with you.

It would be interesting to me to KNOW "for certain" how the universe "began", but it's not a matter of pressing urgency. My IMPRESSION is that cosmology is in VERY ragged shape right now...it might be another century or even longer before humans "KNOW" for sure how it all happened.

Scientist Joke: "Cosmologists are often wrong...but NEVER uncertain." :cheesy:

LL95, you ought to know that I NEVER claimed to be in possession of "absolute truth" (whatever that is) about anything. Nevertheless, there IS ordinary truth and falsehood which I and everyone can easily grasp.

Lack of oxygen is fatal to mammals. Excess rainfall results in floods. An automobile engine will not run without a source of fuel. And so on. Any ordinary proposition about real life can easily be demonstrated if proof is desired.

That is NOT the case with ALL assertions relating to the "supernatural". Can YOU change water into wine? Can YOU heal the sick and raise the dead? Can YOU even levitate...just a little? Do YOU know anyone who's ever done ANY of these things in your presence, under conditions that ruled out fraud?

There's a line in one of Shakespeare's plays: a character boasts "I can call upon the mighty spirits of the deep!" To which another character responds: "Why, so can I and so can any man. The question is, when you call, WILL THEY COME?"

If the "spiritual truths" of religion have NO contact with the ordinary truths that people can learn and understand, in what sense then are they "true" at all? What "good" are they?

If "peace of mind" is what you seek, alcohol, marijuana, and heroin are ALL more reliable; they work EVERY TIME and it's well understand WHY they work every time (has to do with molecules that bind to certain reception points on brain cells). An ordinary truth...with an ordinary material (chemical) explanation.

So it is, I think, with EVERY "truth" that religion claims to bring to the table: unverifible, unreliable, and unproven after thousands of years and thousands of variations.

I can but repeat the wise words of that old British utilitarian: "When I am told that Jesus rose from the dead, two things occur to me. The first is that I have never known a man to rise from the dead. The second is that, sadly, I have OFTEN known men to LIE."

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 5:16 am on Dec. 28, 2002)

Ironic that you mentioned Hawking because I wanted his new book for christmas seriously.

I only write these inane theories because comsomolgy and quantum physics is very interesting to me.

If I brought this shor 1 page theory to mr. hawking he would make me look like a fool so fast it's incredible.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong that just means the basis by which I present my arguement is flawed.

The point is never to rule anything out...it's ok to have an opinion but you must still be objective.

There is no such thing as impossible.

Is it likely that i can levitate, raise te dead, or turn water into wine?

Nope not likely at all...there is a better chance tha ti will make a snow man in San Jaun

However none of those is impossible For it to be impossible there would have to be an absolute certainty

the probabilty for me doing those things is 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000

give or take a trillion but there is still that one chance

To rule out something would be to claim the absolute truth on a subject

and that is what you have done you have ruled out that possibility.

Also who said the bible was absolutely right?

There are other beliefs on Jesus, THe muslims dont believe that Jesus rose from teh dead...they may believe the other stuffs but they don't believe that one.

Could JEsus have committed miracles...yes

Could Jesus have not committed miracles...yes

All possibilities are open.

Hell research Diesm they don't even believe that God cares about us, he created the universe...then left it to chance.

To some that seems alot more likely than a talking snake tricking a naked chick into eating a fruit.

Not to mention the evil organizations corrupt even the parts in the bible that weren't flawed to begin with.

In teh bible it says that Jesus' hair was like wool

Guess what race has hair like that? Black people

but in the movie Jesus of Nazreth his eyes were bluer than a blue jay and his hair was blonder than gold

Coincedence? Hell no.

I suggest you look at Muslim arguements against Christianity alot of them make alot of sense. Of course you have to have studied the bible to understand why they were right.

It's incredible that the church has covered up all these things.

For instance the Pre-Adamite earth.

Yes there was an earth before the one stated in the bible.

If you look at the first sentence in teh bible it says that teh spirit of God hovered aboce the waters of the earth and that the earth was dark and desolute

The church would have the religious that God only created the Earth once.

Guess who God put in charge of the Pre Adamite earth? Lucifer, the Morning Star (before he became satan)

Guess who inhabited the pre-adamite earth?

THey were like humans but they were wild and animal like and savage without souls....much like Cave Men

THat world was emersed in chaos and God destroyed it ala Noah.

Lucifer went on his crusade against God...yadda yadda yadda he's in hell now.

It's all in the Dispensational Truth

if this actually happened or not is open to debate.

The important fact is that the church hides it's own scripture from it's own people.

There are many indescrependsies that are hidden.

So watching a Sunday morning episode of a Jesus cartoon isn't exactley the best place to base information on.

There are millions of things that the church covers up in order to keep order.

THe heirchy did it's job.

The point oof all this si that when you aren't objective you claim the absolute truth.

If you do this then you really should prove it.

Just be objective.

redstar2000

28th December 2002, 14:44

"Nothing is impossible"

I disagree. But even if your statement was true, SOME things, you must admit, are a great deal more improbable than others.

In ordinary life, we usually go with the probabilities...IF we're rational.

The very absence of REAL evidence in favor of the supernatural suggests that EVEN IF it does exist, the probability of ever having ANY encounter with it is TOO SMALL TO MEASURE--thus, in real world terms, it may as well NOT EXIST AT ALL.

"Things" that have no measurable impact on the real world may or may not exist...it makes absolutely no difference. Certainly, such "things" are no excuse for the public display of superstitious nonsense.

:cool:

Lardlad95

28th December 2002, 18:53

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:44 pm on Dec. 28, 2002
"Nothing is impossible"

I disagree. But even if your statement was true, SOME things, you must admit, are a great deal more improbable than others.

In ordinary life, we usually go with the probabilities...IF we're rational.

The very absence of REAL evidence in favor of the supernatural suggests that EVEN IF it does exist, the probability of ever having ANY encounter with it is TOO SMALL TO MEASURE--thus, in real world terms, it may as well NOT EXIST AT ALL.

"Things" that have no measurable impact on the real world may or may not exist...it makes absolutely no difference. Certainly, such "things" are no excuse for the public display of superstitious nonsense.

:cool:

Existing or not God has gone along way to help people out.

When i was dirt poor and laying on flea infested shag carpeting and having roaches crawl over me the only reason I didn't off my self was because of my faith.

My faith gave me the strength.

Whether or not god exists is irrelavent.

There is evidence to support God existing

There is just as much to prove that he doesn't.

We are at a deadlock.

And when we speak of the possibility that I could turn water in wine we are tlaking in the terms of an average human....

If God was truly devine then his ability to do such things would be far greater than mine.

the matter isn't the possibility of if God could do it because if God actually existed then of course the entity would be able to do it.

Thats not even really debateable. The term god applies to a devine being with supernatural powers.

So assumeing that God did exist it's poiintless to say that such actions are impossible.

Nothing is truly impossible. It can be practically impossible.

I certainly wouldn't attempt to survive a nuclear blast but if I did there is a minicule chance that I would survive...infact it's less than miniscule.

In relative terms it's impossible, in letral terms no.

Simple numbers refuse to allow anything to be truly impossible.

I ask you this....do you find that everything perfectly fell into place a coincedence or that it was planned.

Lets exaimen.

the earth was just the right distance from the sun to support life. There was water on the earth that allowed for life. That tiny inanimate objects were exposed to amonia and carbon dioxide at procesily the right time and able to use carbon dioxide. That these single celled organisms adapted to better use carbon dioxide, became multi celled organisms, that those multi celled organisms grew gills, that one crawle d up into the water, that they split into two different factions, which split into four, which split into 16, which split into 32, which created millions of types of species. That everything on the earth went right for these animals to adapt.

I don't care how convincing natural selection is how the hell can everything millions of things fall nito place like that?

Watter which evaportes and rains, rain that keeps the plants alive, plants that provide food and carbon dioxide so that we can live.

The simple fact that everything oN this planets significantly effects the other is just amazing.

How is it possible that by chance that this planet was made for this to happen exactley liek it has.

Do you know the odds of something similar to what happend to this planet happening again are?

THEY ARE ASTRONOMICAL

it is more likely that I will walk on water than for things to fall exactley like they did for earth.

Does that prove that God exists? Maybe, maybe not.

But you are one for probabilities...would you care to calculate the odds of everything falling into place?

A planet having life on it...thats pretty rare.

But a planet whose conditions allow a sentient species to arise that has built the things we have....the odds are just to outrageous.

Oh by the way since you are so interested in evolution

on new years Day 8 o' clock eastern Animal Planet is having a great documentary

it's on what the animals of today will look like 200 million years in the future.

It should be really interesting, it's really good computer animation,

I don't know if you are familiar with the Discovery Channels documentaries but they are incredible.

The latest one on Dinosaurs and the one on Prehistoric Animals was incedible the animation wa amazing

Animal Planet used the same animators

I hope you catch it, it looks incredible.

redstar2000

28th December 2002, 23:03

LL95, if you want long odds, what do you think the odds are against YOU (or ME) as an individual existing. If memory doesn't betray me, it looks something like this:

Odds Against Conception, sexual congress between a fertile male and a fertile female: 80 to 1 against.

Odds on live, healthy birth of baby: 1 out of 2.

Odds on the particular combination of genes that make up a particular person's genome: 82,000,000,000 to 1 against.

Probabilities are multiplied, so that's:

1/80 x 1/2 x 1/82,000,000,000 = 1/13,120,000,000,000

or about 1 chance in a little over 13 trillion. The lottery is a piece of cake, compared to that.

But that also shows how such numbers can be misleading. The odds against YOU (or ME) were enormous...but the odds against SOME child were only 160 to 1 against. Assuming a fertile male and a fertile female have daily sexual intercourse, it becomes nearly CERTAIN that "A" child will be born 9 to 15 months after they begin trying.

Thus it is with planets and evolution. The odds against the human species were ENORMOUS; the odds against a particular planet with a particular mass at a particular distance from a star of a particular size...all ENORMOUS. But we already know that the formation of planets around stars of all kinds appears to be COMMON...more than 80 have been found so far.

We haven't found any "earth-type" planets yet...our instruments aren't good enough yet. But no astronomer doubts that they're not there waiting to be discovered.

Likewise, the appearance of humans as a product of natural selection is a product of ENORMOUS good luck...but the appearance of an intelligent species I consider nearly certain (some evolutionists would disagree with me about that). Everything we can tell about how the universe works suggests strongly that habitable planets, life, and intelligence are ALL highly probable...though the details are EXTREMELY chancy.

Does this mean the universe was designed? by a "God"? Well, the deists would say so. Would it make any difference in the real world? I can't see any. Certainly the practice of magical rituals of worship and the dictates of personal behavior typical of religion would be of no interest to some ancient universe-designer.

The deist "God" does have an advantage over the Ones we are usually confronted with; He makes universes and otherwise LEAVES US ALONE!

I could live with that.

You disrespect yourself, LL95, when you credit "God" for getting through bad times. The strength was really YOURS...YOU deserve the credit.

:cool:

(Thanks for the tip--but I don't own a television set.)

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:08 am on Dec. 29, 2002)

Lardlad95

28th December 2002, 23:12

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:03 pm on Dec. 28, 2002
LL95, if you want long odds, what do you think the odds are against YOU (or ME) as an individual existing. If memory doesn't betray me, it looks something like this:

Odds Against Conception, sexual congress between a fertile male and a fertile female: 80 to 1 against.

Odds on live, healthy birth of baby: 1 out of 2.

Odds on the particular combination of genes that make up a particular person's genome: 82,000,000,000 to 1 against.

Probabilities are multiplied, so that's:

1/80 x 1/2 x 1/82,000,000,000 = 1/13,120,000,000,000

or about 1 chance in a little over 13 trillion. The lottery is a piece of cake, compared to that.

But that also shows how such numbers can be misleading. The odds against YOU (or ME) were enormous...but the odds against SOME child were only 160 to 1 against. Assuming a fertile male and a fertile female have daily sexual intercourse, it becomes nearly CERTAIN that "A" child will be born 9 to 15 months after they begin trying.

Thus it is with planets and evolution. The odds against the human species were ENORMOUS; the odds against a particular planet with a particular mass at a particular distance from a star of a particular size...all ENORMOUS. But we already know that the formation of planets around stars of all kinds appears to be COMMON...more than 80 have been found so far.

We haven't found any "earth-type" planets yet...our instruments aren't good enough yet. But no astronomer doubts that they're not there waiting to be discovered.

Likewise, the appearance of humans as a product of natural selection is a product of ENORMOUS good luck...but the appearance of an intelligent species I consider nearly certain (some evolutionists would disagree with me about that). Everything we can tell about how the universe works suggests strongly that habitable planets, life, and intelligence are ALL highly probable...though the details are EXTREMELY chancy.

Does this mean the universe was designed? by a "God"? Well, the deists would say so. Would it make any difference in the real world? I can't see any. Certainly the practice of magical rituals of worship and the dictates of personal behavior typical of religion would be of no interest to some ancient universe-designer.

The deist "God" does have an advantage over the Ones we are usually confronted with; He makes universes and otherwise LEAVES US ALONE!

You disrespect yourself, LL95, when you credit "God" for getting through bad times. The strength was really YOURS...YOU deserve the credit.

:cool:

I could live with that. :cool:

First off I never credited God with anything...I credited MY faith.

THe difference between us being born as individuals is that one way or another someone was going to be born

80 to 1....out of billions of people.

Someone was going to be born regardless.

Proving that those numbers don't really matter.

An individual was always going to occur.

But I'm not going to dispute what you said you know why?

You fell into my trap.

You proved your self that astronmical odds do not mean that something is impossible.

Me being an individual, the universe playing out how it was.

You just discredited astronomical odds.

And what were we on the subject of before?

What are the odds that someone could walk on water.

thank you for proving my point.

So now that astrononmical odds can't be given full credibility what else do you have to say in your defense?

Excuse my gloating but I can't believe how well your statement played out into my plan

by the way i consider deism alot more valid than alot of otehr religions

I really don't think God gives a damn if you went to teh church picninc and the other shit tehy bring up.

redstar2000

29th December 2002, 14:33

Well, LL95, "gloat" if you wish...I'll certainly "excuse" you, if that's what you want. :cheesy:

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that because things can happen even against very large odds, therefore it is "possible" for someone to walk on water. But everything we know about physics (gravity, the density of water, the mass of individual humans, etc.), says flatly that NO ONE has ever or will ever walk on water. It is IMPOSSIBLE. In mathematical terms, the probability of someone walking on water is not one chance in some huge number of occurances, the probability is ZERO.

The difference is between that which is RARE and that which CANNOT OCCUR AT ALL...if what we have every reason to believe about the universe is true.

Thus travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum is not simply rare, or difficult, or something that can only happen under special circumstances...if Einstein was right, it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Likewise, if what we know about the physical laws of the material universe is correct, then water can NEVER change into wine and the dead can NEVER come back to life, etc. Those things are not just unusually rare occurances that hardly ever take place, THEY CANNOT HAPPEN AT ALL.

Deists and atheists would agree on this; why don't you? And, as long as we're discussing deism, WHY would an Ancient Creator of Universes CARE whether any of the inhabitants of one of his universes had "faith" in "Him" or not? Do we "care" if the tiny insects that inhabit our eyebrows or the bacteria that live in our intestines "worship" us or not?

It seems to me that "inner strength" (whatever that might actually be) comes to us from within...and from those who show solidarity with us. If there actually turned out to be an "Ancient Creator of Universes" (and there's still no EVIDENCE for that), "It" doesn't even notice our existence and "faith" in "It's" existence would be likewise unnoticable.

Consistent deism is atheism in drag. :cool:

Lardlad95

29th December 2002, 20:43

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:33 pm on Dec. 29, 2002
Well, LL95, "gloat" if you wish...I'll certainly "excuse" you, if that's what you want. :cheesy:

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that because things can happen even against very large odds, therefore it is "possible" for someone to walk on water. But everything we know about physics (gravity, the density of water, the mass of individual humans, etc.), says flatly that NO ONE has ever or will ever walk on water. It is IMPOSSIBLE. In mathematical terms, the probability of someone walking on water is not one chance in some huge number of occurances, the probability is ZERO.

The difference is between that which is RARE and that which CANNOT OCCUR AT ALL...if what we have every reason to believe about the universe is true.

Thus travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum is not simply rare, or difficult, or something that can only happen under special circumstances...if Einstein was right, it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Likewise, if what we know about the physical laws of the material universe is correct, then water can NEVER change into wine and the dead can NEVER come back to life, etc. Those things are not just unusually rare occurances that hardly ever take place, THEY CANNOT HAPPEN AT ALL.

Deists and atheists would agree on this; why don't you? And, as long as we're discussing deism, WHY would an Ancient Creator of Universes CARE whether any of the inhabitants of one of his universes had "faith" in "Him" or not? Do we "care" if the tiny insects that inhabit our eyebrows or the bacteria that live in our intestines "worship" us or not?

It seems to me that "inner strength" (whatever that might actually be) comes to us from within...and from those who show solidarity with us. If there actually turned out to be an "Ancient Creator of Universes" (and there's still no EVIDENCE for that), "It" doesn't even notice our existence and "faith" in "It's" existence would be likewise unnoticable.

Consistent deism is atheism in drag. :cool:

YOu want to dabble in physics? Lets do so then.

Theoreticaly...which can a human pass through...wood or water?

Water of course. It's impossible to pass through wood.

Using the laws of density it would seem likely that wood would be denser than water....

However it isn't. Oak, birch, most types of wood have a density less than that of water.

Why? because wood is an organism...

It's not of one simple matter...all organic things are.

So physics can bend.

Look around other than living things you will find no other solids that are less dense than water.

You continually put the feats of the devine in human terms.

If Jesus was truly devine then it's stupid to put human limitations on him.

It's like comparing aples and oranges they are two different things.

When you say that since you and I can't walk on water neither can God then you aren't talking about a God figure...you are talking about a human figure called God.

The concept or lie of God (in your case) is of a being that is supernatural.

So saying that human limitations hold him back is goign against the defenition of God.

Not to mention who said that eisntien was necassarily right?

Why is it that when we can't prove where the universe came from barring religous research...we haven't found out the real explanation.

But when einstien says the speed of light is impossible, there need be no more research found?

You contradict yourself here.

If we can still find out where the universe came from then damn it we can find out how to go at the speed of light.

At the end of this post I will post an article about how Eisntiens theory may be wrong.

You are right about one thing...the probability of a HUMAN walking on water is practically impossible.

But God can do it.

Remember we are talking about God not humans.

and until you can prove God doesn't exist...well I'm going to keep believing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

SYDNEY (Aug. 7) - A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

''That means giving up the theory of relativity and E-mc squared and all that sort of stuff,'' Davies told Reuters.

''But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones.''

Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the August 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.

The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.

Davies said fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.

The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed.

IN TROUBLE EITHER WAY

''But two of the cherished laws of the universe are the law that electron charge shall not change and that the speed of light shall not change, so whichever way you look at it we're in trouble,'' Davies said.

To establish which of the two constants might not be that constant after all, Davies' team resorted to the study of black holes, mysterious astronomical bodies that suck in stars and other galactic features.

They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which Davies summarizes as ''you can't get something for nothing.''

After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the sacrosanct second law of thermodynamics, they concluded that the only option was to challenge the constancy of the speed of light.

More study of quasar light is needed in order to validate Webb's observations, and to back up the proposal that light speed may vary, a theory Davies stresses represents only the first chink in the armor of the theory of relativity.

In the meantime, the implications are as unclear as the unexplored depths of the universe themselves.

''When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses, it's not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard,'' Davies said.

''If what we're seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear.''

It could be that the possible change in light speed will only matter in the study of the large scale structure of the universe, its origins and evolution.

For example, varying light speed could explain why two distant and causally unconnected parts of the universe can be so similar even if, according to conventional thought, there has not been enough time for light or other forces to pass between them.

It may only matter when scientists are studying effects over billions of years or billions of light years.

Or there may be startling implications that could change not only the way cosmologists view the universe but also its potential for human exploitation.

''For example there's a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity,'' Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 300,000 km or 186,300 miles per second.

''Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off,'' Davies said.

Reuters 14:05 08-07-02

Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to disscuss quantum physics I'm up for that seeing as how neither of us has convinced the other

but if you want to continually press probabilities go right ahead

redstar2000

30th December 2002, 03:41

Great article! I hope there are others still following this thread and will get a chance to see it.

See, atheists DON'T think we already "know it all"...if it turns out that Einstein's theory is replaced by a BETTER theory based on EVIDENCE, we would celebrate...and so would Einstein if he were still alive.

I know just enough about quantum physics to know that I'm COMPLETELY out of my depth...I'm aware that lab experiments have confirmed the wave/particle duality in photons. But no one knows WHY...yet! Of the eight theories that purport to explain the experimental results, the "multiple universes" and the "pilot-wave" versions seem most plausible...but no one has yet figured out how to devise an experiment that would eliminate one of more of the various theories (most physicists, I think, still hold to the Copenhagen model).

But what a come-down from that kind of stuff to trying to discuss whether or not a "god" can "walk on water." How the heck would ANYONE know THAT? And WHY would it matter? And what would real EVIDENCE of that "ability" look like? How could you VERIFY it?

Anyone can "imagine" any "god" they wish with any "attributes" they wish, and they can have that "god" command anything "it" wants...and who could ever tell IF they were actually describing anything REAL except from EVIDENCE?

Which is what we keep coming back to: EVIDENCE! You keep asking me to "prove" "god" doesn't exist...and I keep replying that ABSENCE of EVIDENCE is EVIDENCE of ABSENCE. No evidence = No God.

But I LIKE your taste in reading matter. Maybe I can't convince you...but if you keep reading enough real science, I think you'll lose your taste for religious speculation. The REAL universe is FAR MORE INTERESTING than ALL the invented theologies that ever existed put together.

:cool:

Umoja

30th December 2002, 06:04

Religion is history, not science. It's like mixing race, and science. You get a real nasty result either way. So, the bible is then more of a guide book to good living, then it is to a book of government control, and scientific thought on every single subject. I rarely read the Bible, unless I want inspiration, and that's what it was written for. So times can change, but a general concept never does, the trueness of everything in the bible (world being created in six days?) can be debated, but personally, it doesn't matter to me. In the case of the world being created in six days, it's their to say "Hey, listen, God made the world and everything in it. Wow, revolutionary." not to say "Evolution is wrong!!! God made the world in this amount of time and modern science is wrong!!!!!" (I've heard a radio station actually spout that.)

Lardlad95

30th December 2002, 16:17

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:41 am on Dec. 30, 2002
Great article! I hope there are others still following this thread and will get a chance to see it.

See, atheists DON'T think we already "know it all"...if it turns out that Einstein's theory is replaced by a BETTER theory based on EVIDENCE, we would celebrate...and so would Einstein if he were still alive.

I know just enough about quantum physics to know that I'm COMPLETELY out of my depth...I'm aware that lab experiments have confirmed the wave/particle duality in photons. But no one knows WHY...yet! Of the eight theories that purport to explain the experimental results, the "multiple universes" and the "pilot-wave" versions seem most plausible...but no one has yet figured out how to devise an experiment that would eliminate one of more of the various theories (most physicists, I think, still hold to the Copenhagen model).

But what a come-down from that kind of stuff to trying to discuss whether or not a "god" can "walk on water." How the heck would ANYONE know THAT? And WHY would it matter? And what would real EVIDENCE of that "ability" look like? How could you VERIFY it?

Anyone can "imagine" any "god" they wish with any "attributes" they wish, and they can have that "god" command anything "it" wants...and who could ever tell IF they were actually describing anything REAL except from EVIDENCE?

Which is what we keep coming back to: EVIDENCE! You keep asking me to "prove" "god" doesn't exist...and I keep replying that ABSENCE of EVIDENCE is EVIDENCE of ABSENCE. No evidence = No God.

But I LIKE your taste in reading matter. Maybe I can't convince you...but if you keep reading enough real science, I think you'll lose your taste for religious speculation. The REAL universe is FAR MORE INTERESTING than ALL the invented theologies that ever existed put together.

:cool:

I'm glad you liked the article I found it quite interesting myself.

In fact I plan to go to borders today to reserve a copy of Stephen Hawking's new book, it will be wuite interesting

and Far better than his first which was about as Dull as Das Kapital but just as relevant.

I always found physics amazing...

Once I read Hawking' theory of singularities I was hooked.

I suggest you get his new ook also...it has lots of colorful pictures to :smile:

Anyway...

Remeber I never debated whether or not god did those things, i debated whether or not God COULD do such things.

Whether you like it or not, Jesus did exist.

He may have been a lunatic or a crook or he could have really been God incarnate, but the method he used (possibly to con people) did lead to a great way of thinking

Granted that way eventually became corrupt.....but the messege was orignially good none the less.

Unless I was present when Jesus was alive it very unlikely that I would have concrete proof

Thanks to the fact that the technology around then was subpar.

There are possible real explanations for these miracles...some less far fetched htne them being real miracles but some still far fetched none the less.

Moses parting teh red sea

the area of the red sea at which the Hebrews would cross is extremley dry and shallow at one particular part of the year.

Had moses called upon the power of God at this time it could appear that eh waters were receading when infact nature was taking it's course.

Jesus raising the dead.

It's a well known fact that humans have an electrical system.

Electricity courses through our bodies allowing those pad things (can't remember the real name) to shock us back to life.

What if Jesus had an abnormal electrical system in which he could give off a shock.

Hell since we only use 10% of our brain power how the hell are we supposed to know what would be possible if we reached that untapped 90%?

Am I saying this happened? No

Am I saying that there could be an explanation barring devine intervention? Yes

Am I ruling our Devine intervention? NO

I mean who the hell knows.

The gospel could be exaggerated tales of Jesus.

Him feeding all those people with one loaf of bread and a fish?

Maybe he just took them all to dinner or something.

The fact is jesus existed.

What we don't know is what truly went on.

But if you want to take into account physics....
What about teh shroud of turin?

How did an image without pigments appear on it?

How does it have teh same effect as a 3-d x-ray of a person injected with radio activer material?

People didn't even have acess to radioation back then...it was all buried.

Then the really fucked up part is teh carbon dating.

The carbon dating said 14th century

but the thing was in a fire.

Melting metal fell on it....carbon dioxide was thrust into it

OS the carbon dating is fucked up.

No one has been able to explain this though.

Am I saying it's jesus' burail shroud and that he ressurected through it? No

Am I saying it possibly is? Yes

am I saying it possibly isn't? Yes

just thought we could through out a few ideas on this subject.

By the way

Evidence of Absence?

Can you really prove that a balck hole exists?

But most people believe they do.

No one has ever actually been near or come in contact with one.

And the whole partner star thing isn't exactly iron clad....

redstar2000

30th December 2002, 19:53

Black holes, hmmmm....

The "proof" is indirect but goes something like this:

There is a simple mathematical forumla that allows us to determine the mass of each of two bodies that rotate around one another (like the Earth and the Moon).

Astronomers observe that a star is apparently revolving around a point in space where no object can be seen...yet that object has a mass at least 10 or 20 or more times as great as our own Sun. If such an enormous mass were an ordinary star, it could be easily seen. So what is it?

Now the math gets really hairy: our "models" of stellar evolution suggest that changes in the composition of very large stars result in enormous explosions (supernovas) in which much of the mass of the star is blown off and the remainder collapses. Moderately large stars collapse into "neutron stars"--the star literally consists only of neutrons. But for really huge stars, their mass is so great even after the supernova stage that gravity just keeps squeezing tighter and tighter until there is a tiny body of enormous density...so much that even light cannot escape its gravity...hence, black holes.

But, there's a sense in which you are right: however conclusive the indirect evidence may be, there's no substitute for direct observation. When we go to one and see it up close (not TOO close), measure its properties, etc., then will we be able to say with certainty that black holes exist.

I think the "Shroud of Turin" belongs in the same catagory with all the other "relics" that were so popular in the Middle Ages...pious fakes. These things were highly valued then for their "miraculous" properties...but under the cold eye of science, not a one of them can do anything. People were just more gullible then.

I don't think Hawking is dull...but he's HARD. For all those weeks that A Brief History of Time was on the bestseller lists, I wonder how many purchasers actually sat down and tried to read him.

Umoja, here are my three favorite "inspirational" quotes from the "Bible":

He that doeth evil hateth the light.

The guilty man fleeith when no man pursuith.

When putting on thine armour in the morning, do not boast as one who putteth off his armour in the evening.

:cool:

Lardlad95

30th December 2002, 21:34

Quote: from redstar2000 on 7:53 pm on Dec. 30, 2002
Black holes, hmmmm....

The "proof" is indirect but goes something like this:

There is a simple mathematical forumla that allows us to determine the mass of each of two bodies that rotate around one another (like the Earth and the Moon).

Astronomers observe that a star is apparently revolving around a point in space where no object can be seen...yet that object has a mass at least 10 or 20 or more times as great as our own Sun. If such an enormous mass were an ordinary star, it could be easily seen. So what is it?

Now the math gets really hairy: our "models" of stellar evolution suggest that changes in the composition of very large stars result in enormous explosions (supernovas) in which much of the mass of the star is blown off and the remainder collapses. Moderately large stars collapse into "neutron stars"--the star literally consists only of neutrons. But for really huge stars, their mass is so great even after the supernova stage that gravity just keeps squeezing tighter and tighter until there is a tiny body of enormous density...so much that even light cannot escape its gravity...hence, black holes.

But, there's a sense in which you are right: however conclusive the indirect evidence may be, there's no substitute for direct observation. When we go to one and see it up close (not TOO close), measure its properties, etc., then will we be able to say with certainty that black holes exist.

I think the "Shroud of Turin" belongs in the same catagory with all the other "relics" that were so popular in the Middle Ages...pious fakes. These things were highly valued then for their "miraculous" properties...but under the cold eye of science, not a one of them can do anything. People were just more gullible then.

I don't think Hawking is dull...but he's HARD. For all those weeks that A Brief History of Time was on the bestseller lists, I wonder how many purchasers actually sat down and tried to read him.

Umoja, here are my three favorite "inspirational" quotes from the "Bible":

He that doeth evil hateth the light.

The guilty man fleeith when no man pursuith.

When putting on thine armour in the morning, do not boast as one who putteth off his armour in the evening.

:cool:

So much like the black hole we will nevert really know of th eExistenece of God until we are cold in dead.

Of course if you were right then it wouldn't matter

If i was right we'd both be in hell

You for not believeing

and me because I beat moses at pool and he said that I cheated :smile:

The difference with the shroud of Turin is that no one can really debunk the theory so its deadlocked.

Besides it makes no sense how the image was on teh cloth without pigments.

Not to mention this important facts.

In most medevil depictions of the crucifiction the nails that nailed Jesus to the cross were on Jesus' hands

However science has proven that the only way that a person could hang on a cross in such a manner is if the nails were through the wrists.

ON the shroud the blood marks on the wrists.

If it was a fake and made by a person of the 14th century then the blood marks would be in teh hands not teh wrists.

That doesn't guarantee proof but it does kinda make youthink about the blood markings.

What interests me more about black holes is teh entre singularity theory.

My question is if they can be ifinitely large or small

then how can they occupy an object (or rather anti object) about .001 x 10-3 of a grand of sand?

I can under stand if they are small but the entire infinite thing makes no ssense.

Singularities still confuse me.

For instance lets say that the universe started out as a singularity. And it exploded.

How the hell did it explode?

It's a well known fact that singularities give off hawking radiation until they no longer exist...much like black holes.

If it started a s a singularity then the singularity would have wasted away.

Not to mention singularities re created under extremely dense conditions...how the bloody hell did the singularity get started

and we both know that the only way for this to happen is an oscilatting universe

but I already gave the simplest possible answer on why an oscillating universe is impossible.

And most physicits will agree that an oscilating universe isn't very likely.

And that in short is why singularities confuse the hell out of me...I understand them but shit is left unexplained.

By the way I guaruantee that "The Universe in A Nutshell" will be better than A Brief Hisory of teh Universe

(Brief my ass)

I have a copy of that by the way but I can't find it I think it was my dads...but we must have lsot it during one of our moves.