# People do not Understand Science, yeah I'm talking to you Creationist so bring it!



## PbHash (Jan 20, 2012)

As with al my posts, debating is welcome.

```

```
I'm frustrated with the average persons understanding of what science is. A prime example of this is letting creationism into the classroom of science.
Science is a systematic way of gathering knowledge through testable explanations and predictions. The "scientific method" is the hallmark of gathering data and knowledge. The data MUST be empirical and measurable for it to be considered scientific.
One must be as objective as possible in an attempt to exclude biased and extraneous variables.


This is a basic guideline to gathering data.
1. Define a question 2. Gather information and resources (observe) 3. Form an explanatory hypothesis 4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner 5. Analyze the data 6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7. Publish results 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists).
All of this is subject to peer review.

Now explain to me how creationism fits into this. It doesn't so it should be kept out of science class.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jan 20, 2012)

'yeah but god created everything including science' ..............................thats the kind of comment you will get back .


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 20, 2012)

PbHash said:


> As with al my posts, debating is welcome.
> 
> I'm frustrated with the average persons understanding of what science is. A prime example of this is letting creationism into the classroom of science.
> Science is a systematic way of gathering knowledge through testable explanations and predictions. The "scientific method" is the hallmark of gathering data and knowledge. The data MUST be empirical and measurable for it to be considered scientific.
> ...



...okay, cool. Keep it out of the classroom. Likewise, keep science out of things that creationists deem 'unknowable'. To creationists (that I know), it's okay to not know something. That's really the whole of the debate. You want to 'keep it science' in the classroom (...and politics and and). We want to keep it 'unknown' in the affairs of love and hate and blah blah.

'Mystery' is not a scientific term, we get that. And, why do you care if when in a scientific setting I say the materials being studied are from God? Do you 'own' the rights to clinical settings? Why are you the enforcer of rules? Aren't those bad?

Maybe I'll use indents and stuff to look more scientific when speaking to you?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jan 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...okay, cool. Keep it out of the classroom. Likewise, keep science out of things that creationists deem 'unknowable'. To creationists (that I know), it's okay to not know something. That's really the whole of the debate. You want to 'keep it science' in the classroom (...and politics and and). We want to keep it 'unknown' in the affairs of love and hate and blah blah.
> 
> 'Mystery' is not a scientific term, we get that. And, why do you care if when in a scientific setting I say the materials being studied are from God? Do you 'own' the rights to clinical settings? Why are you the enforcer of rules? Aren't those bad?
> 
> Maybe I'll use indents and stuff to look more scientific when speaking to you?


you really do chat a hell of alot of shit


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 20, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> you really do chat a hell of alot of shit


...we come full circle - peace pipe? It's Friday


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jan 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...we come full circle - peace pipe? It's Friday


yeah ill smoke a bucket to you , but i still think you're full of bullshit, even on a friday lol


----------



## PbHash (Jan 20, 2012)

Eye: Ok, no need to attack my writing style since I'm on a smart phone that isn't too smart.S 

Ill tell you why I care. I care because religion holds back science. Early scientist were jailed for speaking out against the truth. Now creationist are trying to weasel their way in to science. Do you want you pharmaceutical researchers to start saying "well I know the drug works because he/she has faith that it works. Fuck that! 

Some food for thought. Why do we no longer believe you get people get sick from their "evil" reads and actions. Why do we no longer believe that lizards are made in fire? These were mysterious along time ago and couldn't Be proven.

Also I done see scientist going to Sunday school and complaining about the teachings going on. The only reason you are ok with something being unexplainable by science is because it fits into your beliefs. Thats called a bias. Note that good science tries to eliminate bias. This is why we own the clinical setting.

Please I would like to hear about how science hinders religion. How does it unsightlyoppress religion. Its not like you have any research to.do.



You


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 20, 2012)

PbHash said:


> Eye: Ok, no need to attack my writing style since I'm on a smart phone that isn't too smart.S
> 
> Ill tell you why I care. I care because religion holds back science. Early scientist were jailed for speaking out against the truth. Now creationist are trying to weasel their way in to science. Do you want you pharmaceutical researchers to start saying "well I know the drug works because he/she has faith that it works. Fuck that!
> 
> ...



...not trying to be harsh. I was being sarcastic about 'life as a clinical setting'  Think about it this way, there's no weight to science because of a single particle. There's no weight to spirituality because of a single particle. Neither exist in the truest sense. Neither have been proven. I think both sides should keep up their research. Why shut one side out? Makes zero sense to me.

The point I am making is - what you do in the realm of the scientific is appreciated by all. It benefits all. Sometimes, it fcks 'all' up. Same goes for the spiritual. It can go too far. And sure, we could list examples all day - on both sides of the argument.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 20, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...okay, cool. Keep it out of the classroom. Likewise, keep science out of things that creationists deem 'unknowable'. To creationists (that I know), it's okay to not know something. That's really the whole of the debate. You want to 'keep it science' in the classroom (...and politics and and). We want to keep it 'unknown' in the affairs of love and hate and blah blah.
> 
> 'Mystery' is not a scientific term, we get that. And, why do you care if when in a scientific setting I say the materials being studied are from God? Do you 'own' the rights to clinical settings? Why are you the enforcer of rules? Aren't those bad?
> 
> Maybe I'll use indents and stuff to look more scientific when speaking to you?


Science does stay out of creationism, until creationism pretends to use science. The rest of the time there is no need for science, just basic reasoning and skepticism. Also, creationism doesn't claim "we don't know', It claims what we do know, 'evolution' is wrong, and then goes on to say we know many specific things, like the age of the earth and the fact that god created galaxy upon galaxy so he could have a special relationship with one species of primates on one planet. We are speaking of course of young earth creationist, and not some self stylized version or one that replaces god with aliens. Technically Deism can be creationism, but obviously that is very different than what is being forced into our classrooms.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Science does stay out of creationism, until creationism pretends to use science. The rest of the time there is no need for science, just basic reasoning and skepticism. Also, creationism doesn't claim "we don't know', It claims what we do know, 'evolution' is wrong, and then goes on to say we know many specific things, like the age of the earth and the fact that god created galaxy upon galaxy so he could have a special relationship with one species of primates on one planet. We are speaking of course of young earth creationist, and not some self stylized version or one that replaces god with aliens. Technically Deism can be creationism, but obviously that is very different than what is being forced into our classrooms.



...I see what you're saying, but how is it holding anything back if cern exists and functions. It's the 'apparent' leading edge of technology. It is an attempt at proving mass to complete the theory, correct? If not, science must accept a different reality - the one behind it. They are teaching toward this science in classrooms now, wouldn't you say? I mean, this is just my experience so far, this is what I've been able to make of it.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jan 20, 2012)

eye ,serious now dude you chat a bhell of a lot of bullshit dude


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 20, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> eye ,serious now dude you chat a bhell of a lot of bullshit dude


...I think your repeat button is stuck, just so you know.


----------



## blazinkill504 (Jan 20, 2012)

PbHash said:


> Eye: Ok, no need to attack my writing style since I'm on a smart phone that isn't too smart.S
> 
> Ill tell you why I care. I care because religion holds back science. Early scientist were jailed for speaking out against the truth. Now creationist are trying to weasel their way in to science. Do you want you pharmaceutical researchers to start saying "well I know the drug works because he/she has faith that it works. Fuck that!
> 
> ...


why would scientists go to sunday school which mainly teaches of god and nothin but that to stop them from teachin that in school? last time i checked sunday schools are church ran so thats like throwin pebbles at a brick wall


----------



## missnu (Jan 20, 2012)

Well religion has held science back a lot, but I think everything needs some checks and balances...if people used science for everything it could be used for I think there would be a lot of other issues to arise...I mean almost anything can be accomplished with science these days and with the proper clearances to do the proper testing and use the proper materials I think humans could combat every ailment known...we can grow new organs and clone people now...but there are repercussions to these actions, and I think that is the usefulness of religion. Sometimes things need to be held back. I myself am not religious, but if a belief in god keeps you from harvesting a new kidney from your own homemade human cloner then please jesus stop this madness. Have you seen the movie Gattaca? Well there are places that do genetic testing and build babies...they take your eggs and sperm and create life, and then they pick out all the bad parts from this union and you can even choose if you want a boy or a girl...just seems wrong to me on a basic human level...to give people full power over life... Some people can handle that kind of power, the problem is that the people that could properly handle it aren't interested in having it...so people that shouldn't have that kind of power are the ones that seek to obtain it I think everything would spin wildly out of control if we didn't have some baptist bombings every once in awhile. Religion is doing just what it was meant to in the first place....I don't understand why people care so much what other people believe in...I mean if you don't believe in god then keep on not believing, but it isn't your "cross to bare" to make sure the rest of the world sees the bullshit of religion for just that...believe what you want, I just don't want to pick my next baby up at the human market with a label on it's ass...


----------



## PbHash (Jan 20, 2012)

blazinkill504 said:


> why would scientists go to sunday school which mainly teaches of god and nothin but that to stop them from teachin that in school? last time i checked sunday schools are church ran so thats like throwin pebbles at a brick wall


I'm not saying send science into Sunday school but if we were to teach evolution in church it would be the same as teaching creationism in science class. We


----------



## PbHash (Jan 20, 2012)

Missnu : I care what other people think bc if you tell someone its ok to believe in flying spaghetti monster, then what point do you say "ok thats just too stupid to believe in".


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 20, 2012)

Religion is childish. Believing in Gods is childish. At some point you have to grow up and deal with reality so the rest of us don't have to clean up after your childish mess you create because of your beliefs. You religions people cause war, cause hate, cause divide. You slow scientific progress and delay needed research like that of Stem Cells. You infiltrate politics and destroy common and logical sense. You are a clear problem toward progress. We dealt with the dark ages of Religion and were pushed back hundreds of years in technology because of it.

The idea of believing in some character who died and came back to life is Stupid and Childish at best. Believing somebody built a damn ark and stuck 2 of every animal on it is beyond being completely asinine. Even by todays standards it's absurd to think we could ever accomplish something like that. Religion truly shuts off the logical thinking of individuals and turns them into Jesus zombies. The idea that Moses spoke to some God and parted a sea, give me a break. We are way too tolerant of religion in this country. People should be locked up for brainwashing their children with this nonsense. 

You Christians constantly CRY about everything. You think you are under attack yet you want to push your childish BS beliefs into politics, on money, in our anthem and in our schools, you have no problem with that. You constantly rewrite history and it's a struggle just to keep the facts out there without you contorting them for your own beliefs or desires. If you were a smaller group of people we would simply call you a cult, if you were an individual believing in this rubbish we would put you in a straight jacket. But because there's enough of you, gullible enough to believe in this crap we call it a religion.

You dismiss all the other hundreds of religions because to you, they are obviously absurd. You know nobody goes to heaven and gets 72 virgins, you know that cows should not be worshiped as Gods or we don't come back as insects. All those things seem laughable to you don't they? Well they should, and so should your own religion. 

I want to make it clear that I am not calling anyone stupid. Believing and doing stupid things does not make one stupid. It makes you gullible, and that is a trait we are supposed to have. We are supposed to have followers who don't question things. Ironically this is just part of evolution and survival, pack mentality, however we are quickly moving past the need for that. 

The only difference between an Atheist and a Christian is the belief in one LESS religion.


----------



## axionjaxson (Jan 20, 2012)

PbHash said:


> As with al my posts, debating is welcome.
> 
> I'm frustrated with the average persons understanding of what science is. A prime example of this is letting creationism into the classroom of science.
> Science is a systematic way of gathering knowledge through testable explanations and predictions. The "scientific method" is the hallmark of gathering data and knowledge. The data MUST be empirical and measurable for it to be considered scientific.
> ...


your a bit behind i think dude , mainstream "science" is very very quietly about to begin "concluding" that the delicate balance that all our lives hang in is not just by chance , but that in order for such a complicated life system to exist , it had to be "done" it didnt just "happen" . Most mainstream scientists off camera will admit that darwins chit is very flawed and that in order for the universe to exist it has to have been "CREATED" . God the Father gave us Jesus and raised him from the dead after he died on the cross and was dead for three days dude , there are historical accounts , do you really think that if you were a roman guard and you were told, "stay awake and stand guard , make sure you don't let anyone steel the body ", do you really think that you woulda slacked off and fell asleep? Heck no you wouldn't fall asleep , they didnt fire you from work back then you know. Also after God brought The Saviour Jesus back to life , Jesus went and talked to his homies ,he even let one of them feel his wounds , he went and preached and people saw him ascend up out of this earth and in to heaven. Open your eyes please before you are REALLY decieved.
I believe in Jesus and he saves me from my sin , and I smoke weed and seriously don't think it's sinful .but if it is I will be forgiven , and if Jesus was like , dude you gotta stop smokin bud , then i would stop, gotta be Jesus or God though.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 20, 2012)

missnu said:


> Well religion has held science back a lot, but I think everything needs some checks and balances...if people used science for everything it could be used for I think there would be a lot of other issues to arise...I mean almost anything can be accomplished with science these days and with the proper clearances to do the proper testing and use the proper materials I think humans could combat every ailment known...we can grow new organs and clone people now...but there are repercussions to these actions, and I think that is the usefulness of religion. Sometimes things need to be held back. I myself am not religious, but if a belief in god keeps you from harvesting a new kidney from your own homemade human cloner then please jesus stop this madness. Have you seen the movie Gattaca? Well there are places that do genetic testing and build babies...they take your eggs and sperm and create life, and then they pick out all the bad parts from this union and you can even choose if you want a boy or a girl...just seems wrong to me on a basic human level...to give people full power over life... Some people can handle that kind of power, the problem is that the people that could properly handle it aren't interested in having it...so people that shouldn't have that kind of power are the ones that seek to obtain it I think everything would spin wildly out of control if we didn't have some baptist bombings every once in awhile. Religion is doing just what it was meant to in the first place....I don't understand why people care so much what other people believe in...I mean if you don't believe in god then keep on not believing, but it isn't your "cross to bare" to make sure the rest of the world sees the bullshit of religion for just that...believe what you want, I just don't want to pick my next baby up at the human market with a label on it's ass...


Science is rational, religion is irrational. Are you saying that we _need_ the irrational to hold back rational progress? How could one want to withhold the cloning and harvesting of human organs that would save millions of humans and improve their quality of life? Why leave it to chance whether your baby will inherit genetic diseases, be malformed, born with some form of mental retardation or illness? If we are able to eventually manipulate the genome to the point where we can eliminate these negatives, and throw in positive traits (I want a boy who is tall, intelligent, handsome, athletic), what could be negative about this process? You may choose to leave these things to chance, but why wish to stop others who don't? If there was to be any checks and balances, it should be rational morality checking rational science, not irrational religion doing so. You may not be a theist, but your reasoning sounds very similar...


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 20, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> your a bit behind i think dude , mainstream "science" is very very quietly about to begin "concluding" that the delicate balance that all our lives hang in is not just by chance , but that in order for such a complicated life system to exist , it had to be "done" it didnt just "happen" . Most mainstream scientists off camera will admit that darwins chit is very flawed and that in order for the universe to exist it has to have been "CREATED" . God the Father gave us Jesus and raised him from the dead after he died on the cross and was dead for three days dude , there are historical accounts , do you really think that if you were a roman guard and you were told, "stay awake and stand guard , make sure you don't let anyone steel the body ", do you really think that you woulda slacked off and fell asleep? Heck no you wouldn't fall asleep , they didnt fire you from work back then you know. Also after God brought The Saviour Jesus back to life , Jesus went and talked to his homies ,he even let one of them feel his wounds , he went and preached and people saw him ascend up out of this earth and in to heaven. Open your eyes please before you are REALLY decieved.
> I believe in Jesus and he saves me from my sin , and I smoke weed and seriously don't think it's sinful .but if it is I will be forgiven , and if Jesus was like , dude you gotta stop smokin bud , then i would stop, gotta be Jesus or God though.


I've never seen so much BS written in one paragraph in my entire life. You are so damn brainwashed I fear it would be futile to even begin to argue with your nonsense.


----------



## PbHash (Jan 20, 2012)

Axionjaxson are you mixing! Where did you hear that! Wow you have obviously been sucked into more untruths but haven't caught on to either.


----------



## PbHash (Jan 20, 2012)

Catchin22: Wow that funny, same though. Yes! Psychics!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 20, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> Religion is childish. Believing in Gods is childish. At some point you have to grow up and deal with reality so the rest of us don't have to clean up after your childish mess you create because of your beliefs. You religions people cause war, cause hate, cause divide. You slow scientific progress and delay needed research like that of Stem Cells. You infiltrate politics and destroy common and logical sense. You are a clear problem toward progress. We dealt with the dark ages of Religion and were pushed back hundreds of years in technology because of it.
> 
> The idea of believing in some character who died and came back to life is Stupid and Childish at best. Believing somebody built a damn ark and stuck 2 of every animal on it is beyond being completely asinine. Even by todays standards it's absurd to think we could ever accomplish something like that. Religion truly shuts off the logical thinking of individuals and turns them into Jesus zombies. The idea that Moses spoke to some God and parted a sea, give me a break. We are way too tolerant of religion in this country. People should be locked up for brainwashing their children with this nonsense.
> 
> ...




...yeah-yeah, I totally believe that the colors and animals, etc. etc. are not symbolic. For sure I'd expect to have a blue monkey wearing a shirt with red tassels take me away into the beyond. I mean, really, what's death without a blue monkey? And don't even try to use yellow tassels either, those are so early 500's.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 20, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> I've never seen so much BS written in one paragraph in my entire life.


You obviously haven't read through many threads here.


----------



## PbHash (Jan 20, 2012)

Tyler: what you wrote before is so true. Just goes to show how people dont even know that they dont understand science. So sad.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 20, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> your a bit behind i think dude , mainstream "science" is very very quietly about to begin "concluding" that the delicate balance that all our lives hang in is not just by chance , but that in order for such a complicated life system to exist , it had to be "done" it didnt just "happen" . Most mainstream scientists off camera will admit that darwins chit is very flawed and that in order for the universe to exist it has to have been "CREATED" . God the Father gave us Jesus and raised him from the dead after he died on the cross and was dead for three days dude , there are historical accounts , do you really think that if you were a roman guard and you were told, "stay awake and stand guard , make sure you don't let anyone steel the body ", do you really think that you woulda slacked off and fell asleep? Heck no you wouldn't fall asleep , they didnt fire you from work back then you know. Also after God brought The Saviour Jesus back to life , Jesus went and talked to his homies ,he even let one of them feel his wounds , he went and preached and people saw him ascend up out of this earth and in to heaven. Open your eyes please before you are REALLY decieved.
> I believe in Jesus and he saves me from my sin , and I smoke weed and seriously don't think it's sinful .but if it is I will be forgiven , and if Jesus was like , dude you gotta stop smokin bud , then i would stop, gotta be Jesus or God though.


ROFLMAO!!!

Seriously dude, stop you're killing me! Mainstream scientists really believe Darwin was wrong, therefore Goddidit?? LOL LOL LOL!
Historical accounts of the resurrection? XD Please stop, my stomach hurts.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jan 20, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> 'yeah but god created everything including science' ..............................thats the kind of comment you will get back .


Seriously? So many people say that creationists will just say something ignorant and stupid... Shut up already lol. There's only like one or two creationists on RIU that would say something like sativas example.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jan 20, 2012)

Heis... Are you referring to me as the self stylized religious guy that replaces god with aliens? lol.... I'm not even gonna respond to that.... Here, smoke a bowl with me .


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 20, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> your a bit behind i think dude , mainstream "science" is very very quietly about to begin "concluding" that the delicate balance that all our lives hang in is not just by chance , but that in order for such a complicated life system to exist , it had to be "done" it didnt just "happen" . Most mainstream scientists off camera will admit that darwins chit is very flawed and that in order for the universe to exist it has to have been "CREATED" . God the Father gave us Jesus and raised him from the dead after he died on the cross and was dead for three days dude , there are historical accounts , do you really think that if you were a roman guard and you were told, "stay awake and stand guard , make sure you don't let anyone steel the body ", do you really think that you woulda slacked off and fell asleep? Heck no you wouldn't fall asleep , they didnt fire you from work back then you know. Also after God brought The Saviour Jesus back to life , Jesus went and talked to his homies ,he even let one of them feel his wounds , he went and preached and people saw him ascend up out of this earth and in to heaven. Open your eyes please before you are REALLY decieved.
> I believe in Jesus and he saves me from my sin , and I smoke weed and seriously don't think it's sinful .but if it is I will be forgiven , and if Jesus was like , dude you gotta stop smokin bud , then i would stop, gotta be Jesus or God though.


The reason you are being ridiculed and laughed at is because your words depend on a deeply misguided view of reality that comes across to rational people as absurd. It would take only the most rudimentary research to clarify your misunderstanding. Even church officials do not say such ridiculous things. It is always uncomfortable when someone shows such profound ignorance when pretending to be informed on a subject, especially when it includes the phrase 'open your eyes'. What you say is so very non-reflective of reality that you MUST have had your eyes tightly shut for a very long time, or else you are some sort of performance artist making a fool of us.

Please take my tone as matter-of-factly. I do not mean to belittle you, but to point out your self belittlement.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 20, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> your a bit behind i think dude , mainstream "science" is very very quietly about to begin "concluding" that the delicate balance that all our lives hang in is not just by chance , but that in order for such a complicated life system to exist , it had to be "done" it didnt just "happen" . Most mainstream scientists off camera will admit that darwins chit is very flawed and that in order for the universe to exist it has to have been "CREATED" . God the Father gave us Jesus and raised him from the dead after he died on the cross and was dead for three days dude , there are historical accounts , do you really think that if you were a roman guard and you were told, "stay awake and stand guard , make sure you don't let anyone steel the body ", do you really think that you woulda slacked off and fell asleep? Heck no you wouldn't fall asleep , they didnt fire you from work back then you know. Also after God brought The Saviour Jesus back to life , Jesus went and talked to his homies ,he even let one of them feel his wounds , he went and preached and people saw him ascend up out of this earth and in to heaven. Open your eyes please before you are REALLY decieved.
> I believe in Jesus and he saves me from my sin , and I smoke weed and seriously don't think it's sinful .but if it is I will be forgiven , and if Jesus was like , dude you gotta stop smokin bud , then i would stop, gotta be Jesus or God though.


See, I've GOT to get better at Poe's Law! I originally thought this post was an atheist doing a parody, but after reading MP's post, I re-read the post and now I'm just not sure. If it's a parody, I'll +rep this guy 'cause it's brilliant. If he's serious,


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jan 20, 2012)

Alagory of the cave....


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 20, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Heis... Are you referring to me as the self stylized religious guy that replaces god with aliens? lol.... I'm not even gonna respond to that.... Here, smoke a bowl with me .


I was referring to deists and Raelians. Deism does not make too many specific claims, and Raelians aren't trying to get into the classroom. Just wanted to distinguish them from the topic of this thread, as it seemed eye was starting to drift.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jan 20, 2012)

Ahh I see.. Well let's smoke a bowl still.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 20, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Ahh I see.. Well let's smoke a bowl still.


I have cheese, kandy kush, nightshade and lemon skunk. Bud, kief, or hash. Bowl, bong, or vaporizer, take your pick.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I have cheese, kandy kush, nightshade and lemon skunk. Bud, kief, or hash. Bowl, bong, or vaporizer, take your pick.


Goddamn! I'm headed to Heis' place on my snowmobile, it's snowing like crazy here. I'll think I'll start with a hit of cheese hash outta the vape...


----------



## PbHash (Jan 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I have cheese, kandy kush, nightshade and lemon skunk. Bud, kief, or hash. Bowl, bong, or vaporizer, take your pick.


I can has dat?!
Ugh I'm just packing bowl 2 for the past 24hrs.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jan 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I have cheese, kandy kush, nightshade and lemon skunk. Bud, kief, or hash. Bowl, bong, or vaporizer, take your pick.


Heis my friend... I'm currently ripped off of some purple flow delivered to me by my fellow bong.. And I must say I love you.. No homo haha.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 21, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Alagory of the cave....


Wasn't he Diogenes' running mate? cn


----------



## axionjaxson (Jan 22, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7Emen4R7Ch4

here are both sides


----------



## JustCoasting (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm a gnostic, which means that I believe that any person can commune directly with their God of choice. I think that religious identification is a total blight on humanity and a cause for most of the man-made atrocities in our history.

Having said that, I think that science is slowly catching up to the various religions in recognizing that some sort of guiding hand created our universe.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 22, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7Emen4R7Ch4
> 
> here are both sides


I enjoyed this video. I watched all the parts. Never seen it before. Are there any certain issues they bring up you want to discuss?

Some thoughts...

They seem to assume that if Darwin was wrong, then god must have done it. Do you feel it is fair to make such a conclusion? Do you think that because something is complicated and unexplained, it is forever unexplainable and therefore needs a magical explanation? I didn't see them present any evidence that a deity is responsible.

They seem to have the misunderstanding that evolution is random. They keep saying that things are too complicated to have just happened. They use the example, if you put a bunch of letters in a box and shake them, you do not end up with a book. Evolution however is not random. It's mechanism is a very specific filter called natural selection, and it has been operating for a very long time. What if we add the concept of selection to the words in a box example? What if we shake the box and it produces a jumbled string of letters, but we do it until the first letter is 'I'. We then select 'I' and shake the box again until we find 'T'. We select the 'T' and put it with the 'I' and shake again. Do you see where this is going? At some point, with the proper selection and if we shake the box enough times, we can spell out "It was a dark and stormy night".

Evolution is not just trial and error, it's trial and error with a specific selector, survival. Survival is challenged by specific pressures called the environment, and only those tries which provide harmony or an advantage over the environment are kept. Is it really that difficult to imagine this process, over many centuries, producing an insect wing?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 22, 2012)

JustCoasting said:


> Having said that, I think that science is slowly catching up to the various religions in recognizing that some sort of guiding hand created our universe.


There is no evidence of this in scientific literature. In fact if any thing, atheism seems to be more largely represented than ever. With each year there are new discoveries in multiple independent fields of science which add to the serious doubt we can apply to creationism. The more science 'catches up', the less creationism makes sense.


----------



## JustCoasting (Jan 22, 2012)

Well, I was thinking that quantum and string theory are catching up to the religions' notions. Or, in the least, going in the general direction.

Science still leaves us with a miriad of unanswered questions.


----------



## JustCoasting (Jan 22, 2012)

Religion tries to answer our questions, claims that it does, and expects us to follow blindly. Science always asks that we question.

And I do question just as you do, Heisenberg. It's just that in any of our times (in human terms) we've never had the technology to confirm or refute the claims that religions make.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 22, 2012)

JustCoasting said:


> Well, I was thinking that quantum and string theory are catching up to the religions' notions. Or, in the least, going in the general direction.
> 
> Science still leaves us with a miriad of unanswered questions.


Quantum study produces some spooky stuff for sure. It's all pretty interesting and still mysterious, but I am not sure any of it supports creationism or a divine presents. I guess I am not sure which notion you mean.

There is more unanswered by science than not, but the point is, science is very careful about the answers it does give us, and all answers are subject to change with new evidence. Religion gives us much fewer and more narrow answers than science, and it's answers have nothing to set them apart from pure guess or delusion, nor have they changed in light of centuries of discovery.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 22, 2012)

As a useful first approximation I like Gould's concept of "nonoverlapping magisteria", or schools of thought. Science is specialized toward asking questions and collecting answers about what we can observe and manipulate. Religion fits elsewhere and operates otherwise. cn


----------



## PbHash (Jan 22, 2012)

JustCoasting: I think you need to look up what an agnostic is because your description is inaccurate.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 23, 2012)

PbHash said:


> JustCoasting: I think you need to look up what an agnostic is because your description is inaccurate.



...no worries, he just _doesn't know_


----------



## axionjaxson (Jan 23, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wivgDck1l88


----------



## axionjaxson (Jan 23, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wivgDck1l88


 heres an interesting video.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 23, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> heres an interesting video.


This is a thread about people that don't understand science, are not able to think skeptically, and you think an hour long video where someone reads from a book about some guy's personal philosophy following a NDE is interesting? What would have been more interesting is if you presented your own ideas and beliefs, even discussed what it is that you found so interesting about such a boring and worthless video.


----------



## VILEPLUME (Jan 23, 2012)

PbHash said:


> As with al my posts, debating is welcome.
> 
> I'm frustrated with the average persons understanding of what science is. A prime example of this is letting creationism into the classroom of science.
> Science is a systematic way of gathering knowledge through testable explanations and predictions. The "scientific method" is the hallmark of gathering data and knowledge. The data MUST be empirical and measurable for it to be considered scientific.
> ...


And people say Christians are pushing about what they believe in!


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 23, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> heres an interesting video.



I watched your last video so that we might discuss some points that you find interesting. I took the time to give you some thoughts and questions. You seem uninterested in exploring and discussing these things, and just want to spread your propaganda apparently. I wont be watching this video.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jan 23, 2012)

Sooner or later the creationists point of view will be thrown to the side as illogical reasoning by scientific principle alone,The same can be said for theology its only a matter of time before people actualy "wisen up" and take what they observe for what it actualy is and not as something they imagine or believe it to be.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 23, 2012)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Sooner or later the creationists point of view will be thrown to the side as illogical reasoning *by scientific principle alone*,The same can be said for theology its only a matter of time before people actualy "wisen up" and take what they observe for what it actualy is and not as something they imagine or believe it to be.


...sorry man, I don't believe this for a second. And apparently, I believe in some pretty unbelievable stuff


----------



## Farfenugen (Jan 23, 2012)

You simply cannot reason or debate logically with fundamentalists, no matter what persuasion they may be. Except of course, those looped out Scientologists, they're just plain whacko.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 23, 2012)

VILEPLUME said:


> And people say Christians are pushing about what they believe in!


He was perfectly logical, you are not. This isn't about what he believes in, it is what we base REALITY on! Got it? We don't base that on your HUNCH that there's some God looking over us. Science and understanding of our reality gives you the life you have, the things you own. If it was wrong, we couldn't build the damn computer you're using to type thoughtless comments like the one above. Sorry if I sound harsh but you religious people have NO clue the damage you contribute by supporting nonsense. 



Farfenugen said:


> You simply cannot reason or debate logically with fundamentalists, no matter what persuasion they may be. Except of course, those looped out Scientologists, they're just plain whacko.


Case in point, the above quote.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jan 24, 2012)

*pulls up chair. Sits down. Lights bowl. Watches pointless arguing. 

Is this helping us advance as humans?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jan 24, 2012)

Man, I'm a hypocrite....


----------



## PbHash (Jan 24, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> *pulls up chair. Sits down. Lights bowl. Watches pointless arguing.
> 
> Is this helping us advance as humans?


I like to think that someone reading these threads may start thinking about what they have been told, what they believe, and maybe take a look at real science. MAYBE it will get some people to think, "hey maybe I should take a Real look at science. So yeah I hope it helps


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jan 24, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...sorry man, I don't believe this for a second. And apparently, I believe in some pretty unbelievable stuff


I meant it in a way that,people are eventualy going to get smart through the generations,i dont think it will be in this lifetime,more of a long view at the creationist perspective , i do not see it lasting for very much longer because of the amount of info we have at our fingertips these days,more and more people will start to see for themselves out of observation and critical thinking thats all.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jan 24, 2012)

PbHash said:


> I like to think that someone reading these threads may start thinking about what they have been told, what they believe, and maybe take a look at real science. MAYBE it will get some people to think, "hey maybe I should take a Real look at science. So yeah I hope it helps


Hmm seems like a legit reason to me. But you're going about it all wrong my friend. Try this way. First ask a simple question like "who here doesn't believe in evolution and why? Please provide evidence and logic".... Then maybe somebody will say I don't believe in evolution for whatever reason. Then you guys have a debate and maybe that person will learn evolution is real OR MAYBE you will gain a eye opening revelation. See what I mean? The way you guys do it, everyone just ends up bashing on each other.


----------



## axionjaxson (Jan 24, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I watched your last video so that we might discuss some points that you find interesting. I took the time to give you some thoughts and questions. You seem uninterested in exploring and discussing these things, and just want to spread your propaganda apparently. I wont be watching this video.


yah uninterested would be appropriate, im not interested in arguing with anyone about it , i spent years arguing it with myself , there was a time when i looked at the world we live in with a view of we live once and then die , and i was cool with it , it was comforting to "know" there was nothing else and all that mattered was what i wanted to do , but that was a lie , science is also a lie , a great deception by the enemy , not trying to argue , I hope and pray you science guys find Jesus.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 24, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> yah uninterested would be appropriate, im not interested in arguing with anyone about it , i spent years arguing it with myself , there was a time when i looked at the world we live in with a view of we live once and then die , and i was cool with it , it was comforting to "know" there was nothing else and all that mattered was what i wanted to do , but that was a lie , science is also a lie , a great deception by the enemy , not trying to argue , I hope and pray you science guys find Jesus.


He's not hard to find, you can usually find him picking your food on a farm somewhere in mexico. It's nice though that you thank him at dinner time for it.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 24, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> yah uninterested would be appropriate, im not interested in arguing with anyone about it , i spent years arguing it with myself , there was a time when i looked at the world we live in with a view of we live once and then die , and i was cool with it , it was comforting to "know" there was nothing else and all that mattered was what i wanted to do , but that was a lie , science is also a lie , a great deception by the enemy , not trying to argue , I hope and pray you science guys find Jesus.


If this is the approach you want to take then I support your right to it, however I question that you have any business bringing what you think to the table if you are not willing to examine it. Do you suppose you are entitled to have others listen to you without returning the courtesy? With that attitude, do not be surprised when others stop paying attention. If you have made up your mind and are tired of the discussion, stay out of it. In these threads, you can not make a statement like 'science is a lie' and not expect to be held accountable for it.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 24, 2012)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> I meant it in a way that,people are eventualy going to get smart through the generations,i dont think it will be in this lifetime,more of a long view at the creationist perspective , i do not see it lasting for very much longer because of the amount of info we have at our fingertips these days,more and more people will start to see for themselves out of observation and critical thinking thats all.


...that's cool. I guess I'm just on the other side of the fence, as they say. I mean this in a polite way, of course. I see the mind as a vehicle, or apparatus that the will uses to accomplish deeds (mover and the moved). I can choose to go with my head or my heart - hopefully both at the same time. Critical thinking is only _one of_ the many wonderful things the mind can do.


----------



## axionjaxson (Jan 25, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> If this is the approach you want to take then I support your right to it, however I question that you have any business bringing what you think to the table if you are not willing to examine it. Do you suppose you are entitled to have others listen to you without returning the courtesy? With that attitude, do not be surprised when others stop paying attention. If you have made up your mind and are tired of the discussion, stay out of it. In these threads, you can not make a statement like 'science is a lie' and not expect to be held accountable for it.


but you seem to have your mind made up already also.


----------



## Luger187 (Jan 25, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> your a bit behind i think dude , mainstream "science" is very very quietly about to begin "concluding" that the delicate balance that all our lives hang in is not just by chance , but that in order for such a complicated life system to exist , it had to be "done" it didnt just "happen" . Most mainstream scientists off camera will admit that darwins chit is very flawed and that in order for the universe to exist it has to have been "CREATED" . God the Father gave us Jesus and raised him from the dead after he died on the cross and was dead for three days dude , there are historical accounts , do you really think that if you were a roman guard and you were told, "stay awake and stand guard , make sure you don't let anyone steel the body ", do you really think that you woulda slacked off and fell asleep? Heck no you wouldn't fall asleep , they didnt fire you from work back then you know. Also after God brought The Saviour Jesus back to life , Jesus went and talked to his homies ,he even let one of them feel his wounds , he went and preached and people saw him ascend up out of this earth and in to heaven. Open your eyes please before you are REALLY decieved.
> I believe in Jesus and he saves me from my sin , and I smoke weed and seriously don't think it's sinful .but if it is I will be forgiven , and if Jesus was like , dude you gotta stop smokin bud , then i would stop, gotta be Jesus or God though.


now THAT is crazy!


----------



## Luger187 (Jan 25, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> As a useful first approximation I like Gould's concept of "nonoverlapping magisteria", or schools of thought. Science is specialized toward asking questions and collecting answers about what we can observe and manipulate. Religion fits elsewhere and operates otherwise. cn


I agree if it is with a god that does not interact with the natural world. But when the god supposedly exits the supernatural world and enters the natural world, that is the point where the god enters the 'science bubble', so to speak. Maybe today we cannot 'test' it. But as you know, that doesn't mean it is impossible. Today it may seem impossible, but if the object of study is in the natural world, we must continue to hold onto the idea that maybe someday we can. And because those who believe in this god claim he is interacting with the natural world, we must reserve speculation until further evidence comes, since none has come as of yet.


----------



## Luger187 (Jan 25, 2012)

> i spent years arguing it with myself


there is your problem. try debating with others that do not hold your point of view. those other people may ask you questions you would never ask yourself, or may provide evidence which you have never seen that refutes your argument. this leads closer to the truth, as opposed to what feels good to YOU.



> there was a time when i looked at the world we live in with a view of we live once and then die , and i was cool with it , it was comforting to "know" there was nothing else and all that mattered was what i wanted to do


you obviously did not take the scientific approach to this. logical atheists do not 'know' there is no god. for all we know, new evidence might show up tomorrow and prove scientifically that there is a god. it probably wont happen, but we always keep the option open. to do otherwise would be like sticking your fingers in your ears. if we already know a god doesnt exist, we will tend to dismiss any evidence showing otherwise. therefore, we shouldnt do it.

also atheists do not believe our actions do not matter. a lot of us take the humanistic approach and realize that our actions affect others. we realize that other beings are like us, and we respect them because of this. we do not do it because some god told us, but rather because of the social contract between humans.



> but that was a lie , science is also a lie


WTF?!?! please tell me which part of the scientific method you disagree with.



> a great deception by the enemy


who is deceiving you? isnt it more likely that your religion is deceiving you? it does tell you that you have to follow without question, right? right there should tell you its bullshit.



> not trying to argue , I hope and pray you science guys find Jesus.


you mean that guy that got sent by god to the middle of fuckin nowhere to tribes people that didnt understand shit? why didnt god send him down to the chinese, who knew a TON more? wouldnt they know how to spread the word better with better technology and know-how?


----------



## Luger187 (Jan 25, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...that's cool. I guess I'm just on the other side of the fence, as they say. I mean this in a polite way, of course. I see the mind as a vehicle, or apparatus that the will uses to accomplish deeds (mover and the moved). I can choose to go with my head or my heart - hopefully both at the same time. Critical thinking is only _one of_ the many wonderful things the mind can do.


your heart doesnt think... LOL.
the will is nothing but the end result of brain computations. many parts of the brain compete to decide what your reaction will be to certain stimuli. sometimes emotion wins over, other times logic does. the VAST majority of brain computation is unconscious, and our consciousness is nothing but the end result of that 'war' in your brain. you have absolutely no reason to believe that anything other than the brain is doing your thinking.

curious question:: why do people say they make decisions 'with their heart'? what would make someone think it is their heart making the decision and not the brain? maybe because it is more of an emotional decision, and some attribute emotion to the heart? i personally think its the unconscious emotional part of the brain, which we cant really describe in words but we just 'feel' like its the right answer.


----------



## PbHash (Jan 25, 2012)

Luger: it's like saying "going with your gut feeling" term not to be taken literally. And if someone thinks your heart can think, well they is ignant.


----------



## Brick Top (Jan 25, 2012)

Sometimes when talking with someone I will, just for the fun I get from it, take up an opposing position to them on something, even if in reality I am in total agreement with them. I just like to see how good someone might be now and then.


Now and then if someone gets onto the Big Bang and how it is the only way to answer everything, I sometimes like to ask them something just to see how they respond. 

I'll say something like how I really do know little about the more detailed bits of the Big Bang (which is true), but if put in the most simple of terms, a void existed, within this void there was dust and gasses and rocks, and everything else that was around at that time, and for whatever reason or reasons the right stuff got together at the right time and combined with great temperature fluctuations and intense pressures, that was when and where 'it' all started, where the "void" began to be filled with all that was being created and expanding outward, that's basically the Big Bang, right?

The normal response would be that more or less, within reason, that would be an acceptable caveman understandable level way to explain the Big Bang.

Then I ask where dust and gasses and rocks, and everything else that was around at that time that all got together came from in the first place. Then I add, and a void existed, allegedly, but be it a void or something else, just call it early space if you want, it, the area, the place where it all began, went on, and is still going on in, it existed. Why? How? Because of what? 

The normal, to continue to keep it simple for me, response would be something like, that part is based on any number of theories, though some are believed to be more probable than others, but the general upshot of it all is that we all agree that some shit went down and that's how it all happened. 

So I ask, again about the 'stuff' and the 'void' and all, and the keep it simple for the moron who is bugging me with questions, meaning of course me, continues and basically it was all stuff that just sort of somehow 'got there, over time, it gathered.' 

I ask about the great pressures and temperature extremes and great amounts of energy, and I get a Sesame Street version how under those extreme conditions there would be large amounts of energy created between the various gasses and elements and dust and rock and extreme temperatures and intense pressures ... but so far no one must have thought I was intelligent enough for even a basic explanation for why all the dust and gasses and elements and rocks, and everything else that was around at that time that then through amazing circumstances created all that energy and temperature extremes and pressure ever existed in the first place, and how it came into existence, let alone the void/area of space/some amount of almost nothingness, whatever you want to call it, existed in the first place for all this inexplicable stuff to be floating around within and then occur within. 

It always ends up how the very earliest steps in the Big Bang are strictly theory, some hotly contested and others more accepted, but all no where near proven in it's actual works, though in what would then follow people could most likely get that part right. 

That's where I like to joke how, to me anyway, that early inexplicable part, that's the Big Bang theory's leap of faith, so to speak, what, in a way, just makes it a totally different form of religion, in that at it's core it is faith based. It's just another chosen belief (not commenting on actual accuracy here) minus the stylized, ritualized mumbo jumbo that goes with other forms of religion. 

Someone could argue until the cows come home how much factual data has been compiled and how it is enough to prove their belief and that it is only a matter of time before enough facts are in so the 'guesstimates' can be weeded out and then the true facts be known to all. 

But that is sort of the same cry of the creationism crowd and thereligionists are another, as are the 'Ghostbusters' and psychics etc. .... the proof is out there .... it is only a matter of time before we discover it and learn it's mysteries. 

Wouldn't the kicker be that the Big Bang people are right, other than the parts they can't really explain are in fact the actions of some 'all powerful being' and that in a way the Big Bang is the true creationism. That is was a thought out, planned, intended action, but a much slower longer term one than creationists and religionists tell about when they tell the story. But in the end, both sides are correct, at least in principal, that the Big Bang did start everything off, but some 'big guy' supplied the makin's and lit the fuse.

That would be funny ..... both sides arguing and defending their position, when it was in fact the same position, but they just saw it as being different. Now that would be a funny end to it all.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jan 25, 2012)

> *
> 
> .I'm frustrated with the average persons understanding of what science is.​
> ​
> *



wow, so you got some marxism in you, typical of atheists to think in a selfish manner. What is science? what is your understanding like that makes it better then mine or someone else's?

your frustrations are ill spent bro, get a life.

creationism in a class is not just about God, but about other cultures and how they practice and what they preach. If your mind is TOO small to understand and play like an adult, then that is all on your small brain. From what you are posting, it seems that you think your own understanding is supreme... As stated previously, get a life bro!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 25, 2012)

PbHash said:


> Luger: it's like saying "going with your gut feeling" term not to be taken literally. And if someone thinks your heart can think, well they is ignant.



...you putz. 

"The gut's brain, known as the enteric nervous system (ENS), is located in sheaths of tissue lining the esophagus, stomach, small intestine and colon. Considered a single entity, it is packed with neurons, neurotransmitters and proteins that zap messages between neurons or support cells like those found in the brain. It contains a complex circuitry that enables it to act independently, learn, remember and, as the saying goes, produce gut feelings.


In his book _The _Second _Brain, _HarperCollins 1998, Dr. Michael Gershon, a professor of anatomy and cell biology at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City, dubs the entire gastrointestinal system the body's second nervous system. "The brain is not the only place in the body that's full of neurotransmitters," says Dr. Gershon. "A hundred million neurotransmitters line the length of the gut, approximately the same number that is found in the brain..." If we add the nerve cells of the esophagus, stomach and large intestine, there are more nerve cells in the gut than there are in the entire remainder of the peripheral nervous system. Nearly every chemical that controls the brain in the head has been identified in the gut, including hormones and neurotransmitters."

...how about, gut feeling with an equal amount of planning. Not ignoring one function or the other. There's an advantage to being a believer, and also a believer in what science can do. To start, it sure takes the fckn edge off.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 25, 2012)

Luger187 said:


> your heart doesnt think... LOL.
> the will is nothing but the end result of brain computations. many parts of the brain compete to decide what your reaction will be to certain stimuli. sometimes emotion wins over, other times logic does. the VAST majority of brain computation is unconscious, and our consciousness is nothing but the end result of that 'war' in your brain. you have absolutely no reason to believe that anything other than the brain is doing your thinking.
> 
> curious question:: why do people say they make decisions 'with their heart'? what would make someone think it is their heart making the decision and not the brain? maybe because it is more of an emotional decision, and some attribute emotion to the heart? i personally think its the unconscious emotional part of the brain, which we cant really describe in words but we just 'feel' like its the right answer.



...I have a lot of reason to think that my brain is not the only processor in my body. The very fact that I call it a processor means that it is a component of a body (group). I say it would be a little crazy to assume any sort of 'for certain' stance on who's doing the thinking.

When a person goes into a psychotic state f.e., who's 'driving' the other person? The 'other' person still functions, has memory of events of an episode or episodes. There's nothing to be sure about here other than to just accept the possibilities. (imo)


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 25, 2012)

also, why is it that when a certain part of the brain is damaged... we may lose conscious thought forever? does that mean consciousness is dependent on organic living material to exist? 

hmmmmm


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 25, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> also, why is it that when a certain part of the brain is damaged... we may lose conscious thought forever? does that mean consciousness is dependent on organic living material to exist?
> 
> hmmmmm


...If consciousness is energy how could it be lost? The question is, what function is it now serving. Does this mean that organic living materials need consciousness to exist? I think you might be proving my point a bit. The consciousness never goes away, the vehicle or apparatus diminishes in function as time goes on. I don't want to place too much stock in what will eventually be turned into the ground. I don't deny its use, or abilities, but the consciousness stays while the flesh is reused. Think about it like this - all of us will die one day. Other people will still be living. What do you think happens to conscious awareness? It's energy so no dying, right? Great, now, what's the source of that?


----------



## Justin00 (Jan 25, 2012)

LOL thats all i can say to the OP. Apparently he is going to edumucate us about how religion is not science. really, you don't say?

wow thank you soooooooo much for this life changing revelation, now take you bigotry elsewhere if you please. 



honestly i was actually expecting more when click on the topic, i thought we were going to have a nice debate about the scientific method of making good choices in cannabis growing. Turns out its just another anti religious fanatic trying to start up a fight.


----------



## Luger187 (Jan 25, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> Sometimes when talking with someone I will, just for the fun I get from it, take up an opposing position to them on something, even if in reality I am in total agreement with them. I just like to see how good someone might be now and then.
> 
> 
> Now and then if someone gets onto the Big Bang and how it is the only way to answer everything, I sometimes like to ask them something just to see how they respond.
> ...


as you probably know, Hubble discovered red shift of galaxies. he showed that the space between the galaxies is expanding. the galaxies arent necessarily moving apart, but rather the space is expanding. not only that, but it is going faster and faster with every second that goes by. it is speeding up. if you turn back the clock, it appears that everything at one time was 'squished into a tiny point. things like rocks and atoms werent even formed yet. the particles that make up the atom had to be created from energy first, then coalesce together to form atoms, using the forces that also appeared.

it is still hotly debated, but according to the evidence, that looks like what may have happened. im not really convinced, as i think it is more of an inflation/deflation cycle that repeats. and each time it deflates and gets tiny, the particles collide and destroy eachother, turning back into their elementary particles and starting the universe anew. 

here is some vids that i found the other day. the first is about particles and forces(obviously) and the second shows how those forces separated and the particles came together during the big bang. 

[video=youtube;V0KjXsGRvoA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0KjXsGRvoA[/video]
[video=youtube;K6i-qE8AigE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6i-qE8AigE[/video]


----------



## Beefbisquit (Jan 25, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I see what you're saying, but how is it holding anything back if cern exists and functions. It's the 'apparent' leading edge of technology. It is an attempt at proving mass to complete the theory, correct? If not, science must accept a different reality - the one behind it. They are teaching toward this science in classrooms now, wouldn't you say? I mean, this is just my experience so far, this is what I've been able to make of it.


Cern is run by some of the fore-most experts in their fields. These are people who have already accepted that science is correct in most areas it delves into (with varying degrees of course) and have chosen to make it their life's work. Creationism is an affront on people who are still developing the faculties to make an honest, and accurate decision. No CERN physicist is suddenly going to say "Oh shit, everything I ever studied is wrong and the world is really 6000 years old etc, etc, etc, etc..." 

To learn about many fields of science you have to take the appropriate courses in school, a lot of them you have to actively select to enrol in. Creationism is being taught at an exceedingly early age, and can severely impede a persons ability to make rational decisions based on available evidence.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 25, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> Cern is run by some of the fore-most experts in their fields. These are people who have already accepted that science is correct in most areas it delves into (with varying degrees of course) and have chosen to make it their life's work. Creationism is an affront on people who are still developing the faculties to make an honest, and accurate decision. No CERN physicist is suddenly going to say "Oh shit, everything I ever studied is wrong and the world is really 6000 years old etc, etc, etc, etc..."
> 
> To learn about most science you have to take the courses in school, a lot of them you have to actively select to enrol in. Creationism is being taught at an exceedingly early age, and can severely impede a persons ability to make rational decisions based on available evidence.


...I wouldn't expect a cern physicist would say that. There are ages within the ages, as evidenced by the two calendars, or gears, of the maya calendar. Don't take this down the 'maya' road. It's not what I mean. Time is a whole other discussion 

The point of my post was to say that the more we look into things, the more 'nothing' we see that ends up needing justification with potentialities. I'm cool with that. I'm just not going to think that it's 'all'.

I just thought of something funny. Some people say 'mother earth' and 'science' but don't look to understand that earth is a feminine or negative aspect, and thought is a positive or masculine aspect. One 'penetrates' the other. And maybe we could say that the earth (thanks Jim) has in fact been ravaged and plundered and ripped and bit. For what? Comfort we can see and feel?

"What have they done to the earth? 
What have they done to our fair sister? 
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her 
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn 
And tied her with fences and dragged her down"

...the world has been run by the brain for how long now? And, where are we headed? Anywhere different than in the dark ages? I don't think so. But man, stuff looks fckn awesome when it's getting blown to sht. That's the western mentality and it is more science based through television than is it faith based.

My .02 - Hope that wasn't too much of a rant


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 25, 2012)

olylifter420 said:


> wow, so you got some marxism in you, typical of atheists to think in a selfish manner. What is science? what is your understanding like that makes it better then mine or someone else's?
> 
> your frustrations are ill spent bro, get a life.
> 
> creationism in a class is not just about God, but about other cultures and how they practice and what they preach. If your mind is TOO small to understand and play like an adult, then that is all on your small brain. From what you are posting, it seems that you think your own understanding is supreme... As stated previously, get a life bro!


No one cares if creationism has it's own class, just keep it out of science class. Typical oly, always eager to play the victim while having not the faintest understanding of the issue.




Justin00 said:


> LOL thats all i can say to the OP. Apparently he is going to edumucate us about how religion is not science. really, you don't say?
> 
> wow thank you soooooooo much for this life changing revelation, now take you bigotry elsewhere if you please.
> 
> ...


You thought a thread which explains in it's title that it pertains to creationists was about MJ growing and that's somehow the OP's fault?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jan 25, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> No one cares if creationism has it's own class, just keep it out of science class. Typical oly, always eager to play the victim while having not the faintest understanding of the issue.
> 
> typical heis, trying to get back at me for calling you out on some stuff...
> 
> ...




..................


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jan 26, 2012)

hey oliver is back ..........................with his fountain of knowledge


----------



## ClaytonBigsby (Jan 26, 2012)

Seriously?!?!?!?!? How needy are you to feel superior for even discussing this here? It is the same old arguments. Science vs creationists. Scientists believe they are the elite thinkers because creationists "don't have scientific proof" and expect someone HERE to provide some. REALLY?!?!?!?! HERE?!?!?!?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Why the fuck do you scientist wanna bes care what others think? You are not going to change their mind any more than they are going to change yours. You are not elite. Science has evolved and continually proven past science wrong when those "scientists" knew they were right and had nothing but contempt for anyone who opposed them because they had "science" on their side.

I am not a holy roller or believer in a god the way the bible claims. I also do not believe science knows everything. 

I am sure you will come back and say that this is a philosophical discussion for the advancement of one idea over the other, but it is not. It's some jerkass twits who need to feel superior for whatever reason and use "science" as their weapon because they know creationists do not have solid evidence (in a scientific model) to argue from, thus making you superior in intellect. What IF you are wrong? 

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." Sir Isaac Newton


----------



## heyYousGuys (Jan 26, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> You religions people cause war, cause hate, cause divide.


Even without religion, there will be war. There will be war over money, territory, power, opinions, trade. Religion is just an iota of a fraction of why countries go to war. Don't get it twisted. There is a war for every subject. Religion is but one, not ALL.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 26, 2012)

heyYousGuys said:


> Even without religion, there will be war. There will be war over money, territory, power, opinions, trade. Religion is just an iota of a fraction of why countries go to war. Don't get it twisted. There is a war for every subject. Religion is but one, not ALL.


 As I said in another thread -- even without cancer there would other diseases. Should we stop trying to eliminate cancer just because malaria is killing people? That seems to be the essence of your argument. Not very convincing IMO.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 26, 2012)

Religion = Disease


----------



## olylifter420 (Jan 26, 2012)

malaria would not have happened if evolution had not existed!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!///sarcasm





mindphuk said:


> As I said in another thread -- even without cancer there would other diseases. Should we stop trying to eliminate cancer just because malaria is killing people? That seems to be the essence of your argument. Not very convincing IMO.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 26, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Religion = Disease


Religion = Union

Disease = Separation


----------



## heyYousGuys (Jan 26, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> As I said in another thread -- even without cancer there would other diseases. Should we stop trying to eliminate cancer just because malaria is killing people? That seems to be the essence of your argument. Not very convincing IMO.


You will never eradicate religion. See, it's people like you that persecute and have zero tolerance. It's people like you that support genocide. Because let's be honest, you want religion gone. And in order to do that you have to execute a few billion people. Are you saying you support worldwide genocide? The act of murder because you are annoyed with a large collective of the population? 

Is it ok if were to murder you because I disagree with your non-belief? Is that alright?

I never even said I was religious or not......but from an objective point of view.......you are the weak one. You have no tolerance.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 26, 2012)

heyYousGuys said:


> Because let's be honest, you want religion gone. And in order to do that you have to execute a few billion people.


You spelled Educate wrong.


----------



## Brick Top (Jan 26, 2012)

Luger187 said:


> if you turn back the clock, it appears that everything at one time was 'squished into a tiny point. things like rocks and atoms werent even formed yet. the particles that make up the atom had to be created from energy first, then coalesce together to form atoms, using the forces that also appeared.



Just for the sake of argument, let's say the above is true, 100% correct, spot on. 

Where did the 'stuff' that was needed to start out that sequence all originally come from?

Could the existing conditions of the time created them from absolute nothingness, because they had to be created in some way at some time prior to all that then followed (going with the assumption that the above is accurate)?

That is unless sciences position about all the 'stuff' is basically the same as the Christian belief in God, that he has always existed and always will, that he is without beginning and without end. 

If science's position is that the 'stuff' was just always there, along with the void to then fill with all the 'stuff' in it's new forms, then it is a leap of faith on the part of science. It is an accepted belief without any scientific evidence to support it, and that is not really different than believing in an all powerful entity that, in one manner or another regardless of what religious writing tell us, created everything.

To me, when someone attempts to explain evolution starting with the Big Bang and then moving until today it is rather like the cartoon below, other than the step where there needs to be a whole lot more clarity is the first, not the second or any others that follow.








​


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 26, 2012)

heyYousGuys said:


> You will never eradicate religion. See, it's people like you that persecute and have zero tolerance. It's people like you that support genocide. Because let's be honest, you want religion gone. And in order to do that you have to execute a few billion people. Are you saying you support worldwide genocide? The act of murder because you are annoyed with a large collective of the population?
> 
> Is it ok if were to murder you because I disagree with your non-belief? Is that alright?
> 
> I never even said I was religious or not......but from an objective point of view.......you are the weak one. You have no tolerance.


Ever ordered Sea Monkeys from the back of a comic book? They are not monkeys at all, but brine shrimp, tiny creatures whose eggs survive long periods in a nearly-dry state.


I can only hope that you will join with me in my outrage. Brine shrimp eggs are ripped from their natural habitat and shipped to hatch far from family and friends. Many eggs do not survive the arduous trip. The lucky ones that survive do not live free, but are doomed to an unfulfilling aquarium life as the property of snot-nosed kids. It is not unlike the early slave trade in the U.S.


If you are tempted to click Add Comment, be forewarned. Should you challenge my likening the brine shrimp trade to the slave trade, or question whether brine shrimp are capable of feeling fulfilled or unfulfilled, or ask me to back up the claim that kids are snot-nosed  I have an ace up my sleeve. I shall call you a racist. Nay, even better, I shall accuse you of being pro-slavery. 


Its a nifty, sleight-of-mind trick that lets me get away with begging the question, setting up a straw man and launching an ad hominem attack, all while looking like Im defending decency. Heck, I may even fool myself.


If youd like to try my trick, here are the steps: (1) Make a claim and apply it to a worthy cause. (2) Should people challenge assumptions underlying the claim, accuse them of opposing the cause. (3). Call them names and encourage others to jump on your bandwagon Thus it will make short work of any opponents. 


Of course, this doesnt happen in the real world. Skeptics arent so petty as to indulge such tactics, wittingly or unwittingly, much less fall for them. Thank goodness for that. -Steve Cuno


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 26, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> You spelled Educate wrong.


...the word is still the same.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 26, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> Just for the sake of argument, let's say the above is true, 100% correct, spot on.
> 
> Where did the 'stuff' that was needed to start out that sequence all originally come from?
> 
> ...


There is nothing in evolution or the big bang theory that excludes god as an author. The theories are not concerned with such questions. They do not attempt to describe how life/universe began, just what happened after. Origins are still unknown, and unknown does not equal 'god did it' in science. It simply means we do not know.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 26, 2012)

heyYousGuys said:


> You will never eradicate religion. See, it's people like you that persecute and have zero tolerance. It's people like you that support genocide. Because let's be honest, you want religion gone. And in order to do that you have to execute a few billion people. Are you saying you support worldwide genocide? The act of murder because you are annoyed with a large collective of the population?
> 
> Is it ok if were to murder you because I disagree with your non-belief? Is that alright?
> 
> I never even said I was religious or not......but from an objective point of view.......you are the weak one. You have no tolerance.


You're argument is a non-sequitur sir. Because I dislike the negative aspects of religion and think mankind would be better off without it, does not make me genocidal. Are you disagreeing with my contention that religion has been responsible for many human atrocities?


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 26, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> Just for the sake of argument, let's say the above is true, 100% correct, spot on.
> 
> Where did the 'stuff' that was needed to start out that sequence all originally come from?
> 
> ...


The point of the cartoon appears lost on you. It's making light of the fact that such an explanation is special pleading and worthless. Science is interested in finding answers. Adding something that must remain inexplicable doesn't get us closer to an answer, it actually adds unnecessary complexity. 

"_If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"
_ - Dr. Carl Sagan


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 26, 2012)

Debating with Christians on Religion is going to end in the same outcome, you will understand reality, they will hold to their beliefs. 

They will dismiss every other single religion and recognize the ridiculousness of them but still believe in Jesus, Moses, Noah's Ark and every other piece of obvious (and laughable) fiction from the bible. 

The truth is the only difference between an Atheist and a Christian is the belief in ONE less religion.

And I am really sick of the "Well Science can't explain it so God did it" Answer. And I am sick of Religion changing it's stance when they can no longer argue against science without looking obviously fake to even their followers. It's full of constant excuses and story changes. Religion is a joke. 

If you were a member of 100 people instead of millions you would be considered a CULT, and if you were the only one who believed in that black book of BS you would be considered insane and we would treat you for it with medication, get enough people to fall for that crap and we call it religion. Absurd.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 26, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> Debating with Christians on Religion is going to end in the same outcome, you will understand reality, they will hold to their beliefs.
> 
> They will dismiss every other single religion and recognize the ridiculousness of them but still believe in Jesus, Moses, Noah's Ark and every other piece of obvious (and laughable) fiction from the bible.
> 
> ...


I disagree and know plenty of deconverted Xians that credit one or more atheists challenging their beliefs. I have seen it on forums just like this one as well IRL. I think some Xians are unreachable, but not everyone is immune to logical arguments. Anyone that can think rationally has a chance to come to an epiphany. OTOH, I have never seen anyone convert to religion by logical arguments, only by personal experience.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 26, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I disagree and know plenty of deconverted Xians that credit one or more atheists challenging their beliefs. I have seen it on forums just like this one as well IRL. I think some Xians are unreachable, but not everyone is immune to logical arguments. Anyone that can think rationally has a chance to come to an epiphany. OTOH, I have never seen anyone convert to religion by logical arguments, only by personal experience.


Oh I have converted my share as well, but in general... you will have the same thing. After a number of years it becomes very tiring. The best thing you can do IMO is just not accept it as being anything but ridiculous. Religion has spread because too much acceptance and that needs to stop.


----------



## Brick Top (Jan 27, 2012)

Not to sound like I am taking the side of religion in this, but it is really rather silly to say how religion is not scientific and is unprovable, and even next to impossible to offer much, if any, real evidence. 

But by the very nature of religion, proof is something that is totally noninclusive. The basis of religion is in faith, faith in what is not provable. If you could Google and find God's website, email address, home address, home telephone number that would pretty much completely do away with any and all need for faith, because you do not need faith to believe in something that is known and provable to exist. 

If such an all powerful entity did create everything he would darn well be intelligent enough to be able to cover his tracks so no true proof of his existence and actions could ever be found so faith and faith alone would be all his followers would have to rely on or cling to. 

So, you have this all powerful entity. He is omniscient, he always has been and he always will be. He can create matter of all kinds from absolute nothingness. Through the Big Bang or the 6-day creation story he created everything, man included. 

Well man was his design, he knows it's limits. Also, having always known everything, and since he always will know everything, it is not as if he would not know the extents or limits of man's mind and science. 

Don't you think a being so powerful and so intelligent could throw a few monkey wrenches in the works to keep man from ever discovering his actual existence?

OK, one of the big arguments between Bible thumpers and the heathens (joke there) is how long the earth has existed. The heathens have various beliefs, but then tend to run in the billions of years anyway. The Bible thumpers have the age of the earth, around where, something like 6,000-years? It has people and dinosaurs living together like "The Flintstones." 

So now you have this all powerful entity that can create all types of matter from absolute nothingness, that (for the sake of argument) created everything, including man/woman, and he knows their limitations, he knows just how smart they can ever become and how advanced their science could ever be, and that is of course because he is and always was and always will be all knowing. 

Do you think that maybe, just maybe an entity that intelligent and that capable might be able to play a few tricks, like lets say one with carbon dating and other forms of dating. He would have to know how they would be done one day, so maybe he throws in a wrinkle where when dating something, after whatever testing is being done, once a certain point is reached the answer given/found is no longer accurate, like things ages increase at a growing exponential rate, but he makes sure that it is done in a way that human science will never even wonder about it, let alone discover it, this making something maybe 5,000 years old appear to be 10 billion years old, or whatever. That throws science a curve and it helps retain the need for faith, because if science dated the earth at pretty much the same time The Bible did, then that is pretty good evidence that the Bible is correct and suddenly the amount of faith needed diminishes. 

Does anyone actually believe that a true all knowing all powerful ever existing entity would be incapable of such things?

If such an entity exists he might be laughing his butt off watching all the scientists out to prove he does not exist chasing their tails and following dead end or totally misdirecting leads. 

Remember now people, you're not just thinking of the smartest guy that ever graduated from M.I.T., or all of them together, plus a bunch others. You are talking about an eternal being of infinite power/ability and wisdom. 

Shouldn't that be enough to outfox all the smartest humans in the world?

Anyone who does not believe that to be the case has, in their mind, elevated man to a point of almost equal, if not equal, infinite power/ability and wisdom, or else they would have to admit that such an entity could in fact fool all mankind for all time to protect the need for faith to continue to exist.

That's just a little something to mull over in your mind the next time you finish a bowl and then go and do a little deep thinking .............. that or I guess you can just take a newspaper along to read while you take a dump. It's your choice.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 27, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> Not to sound like I am taking the side of religion in this, but it is really rather silly to say how religion is not scientific and is unprovable, and even next to impossible to offer much, if any, real evidence.
> 
> But by the very nature of religion, proof is something that is totally noninclusive. The basis of religion is in faith, faith in what is not provable. If you could Google and find God's website, email address, home address, home telephone number that would pretty much completely do away with any and all need for faith, because you do not need faith to believe in something that is known and provable to exist.
> 
> ...


There's no deep thinking about what you just said, sorry but none. Just more religious excuses, that is all it ever will be when you create a God.


----------



## Brick Top (Jan 27, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> If you&#8217;d like to try my trick, here are the steps: (1) Make a claim and apply it to a worthy cause. (2) Should people challenge assumptions underlying the claim, accuse them of opposing the cause. (3). Call them names and encourage others to jump on your bandwagon Thus it will make short work of any opponents.



Sooooooo, what you are actually saying is that all you need to do is to turn into a politician on your opponent, and once you have done that, you're in like Flynn.

Do you by chance have anything else 'new' to tell us about? Maybe, oh, I don't know, something like, there's gravity?


----------



## PbHash (Jan 27, 2012)

Brick Top: there are so many problems with your statements and like Catch22 said it isn't terribly deep. Also these claims/ideas have no basis.

Saying God started the big bang also has less pool roof than science. If you keep of with stuff like that you would know scientist don't think the big bang came from nothing.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 27, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> There's no deep thinking about what you just said, sorry but none. Just more religious excuses, that is all it ever will be when you create a God.


Actually, BT has a point that if there were a creator being, he must go to great lengths to deceive. Of course this begs the question of why such a being would do such a thing while simultaneously requesting that people worship him? An odd request for something that wants to remain hidden and even more odd that people should want to praise such a deceptive creature.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 27, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Actually, BT has a point that if there were a creator being, he must go to great lengths to deceive. Of course this begs the question of why such a being would do such a thing while simultaneously requesting that people worship him? An odd request for something that wants to remain hidden and even more odd that people should want to praise such a deceptive creature.


Maybe, in theory but does not do a single thing to validate the remote possibility of a God. I could apply the same theories to that of invisible pink elephants, it's nonsense. 

What really makes me shudder as at one point a long long time ago, I would have considered myself religious, and the arguments here are probably not far off from what I would have offered too. You need to realize you've been brain washed, and it's okay. It's nothing to be embarrassed about, but drop it before it's too late or you brainwash others as well. Living your life in a lie is not rewarding. Those debates you have constantly in your head over if you or right or wrong can all be solved through atheism. The truth as we know it, is always the answer.


----------



## PbHash (Jan 27, 2012)

catch22: so right. Use God as a fill in the blank, take out God and insert any object or idea. Still would be stuck with an improbable theory/idea


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 27, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> Sooooooo, what you are actually saying is that all you need to do is to turn into a politician on your opponent, and once you have done that, you're in like Flynn.
> 
> Do you by chance have anything else 'new' to tell us about? Maybe, oh, I don't know, something like, there's gravity?


My intent was to characterize the post I quoted, not to inform people of an actual tactic.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 27, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> Not to sound like I am taking the side of religion in this, but it is really rather silly to say how religion is not scientific and is unprovable, and even next to impossible to offer much, if any, real evidence.
> 
> But by the very nature of religion, proof is something that is totally noninclusive. The basis of religion is in faith, faith in what is not provable. If you could Google and find God's website, email address, home address, home telephone number that would pretty much completely do away with any and all need for faith, because you do not need faith to believe in something that is known and provable to exist.
> 
> ...



You are basically saying that a being powerful enough to fool us is powerful enough to fool us. No real way to disagree with that. If I were to accept such a situation as reality, I think I would still have the desire to see the universe unwoven, if for no other reason than to see just how eleborate the deception can get. God has thrown some really interesting counter-intelligence our way so far, it would be exciting to see what he has in store next.


----------



## PbHash (Jan 27, 2012)

So if God is trying to be so elusive, why should I be punished for not believing in him? I'm just looking for the truth so if he is hiding it, why? I know Christians are supposed to have faith but if you give me nothing to work with then I feel I'm not to blame.


----------



## Stonerman Enoch (Jan 27, 2012)

Uggh!!!! 50 Year old stoner bricktop crackin skulls


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 27, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> There's no deep thinking about what you just said, sorry but none. Just more religious excuses, that is all it ever will be when you create a God.





PbHash said:


> Brick Top: there are so many problems with your statements and like Catch22 said it isn't terribly deep. Also these claims/ideas have no basis.


I think we are entertaining the idea in and of itself, not necessarily in the context that it lends credit to creationism. All of us commenting so far are atheists after all... and BT did announce that he likes to play the opposition, so I am assuming he seeks actual exploration of the topic rather than just saying it's all bunk. We know it's bunk, and it's refreshing to get some actual thought on the subject other than "the bible says so', which is the best most creationists can do.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jan 27, 2012)

olylifter420 said:


> malaria would not have happened if evolution had not existed!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!///sarcasm


in your world oliver, the sick son of a bitch, you call your god, created malaria and everyother horrific disease we have today , and you worship this saddo .
,


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 27, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You are basically saying that a being powerful enough to fool us is powerful enough to fool us. No real way to disagree with that. If I were to accept such a situation as reality, I think I would still have the desire to see the universe unwoven, if for no other reason than to see just how eleborate the deception can get. God has thrown some really interesting counter-intelligence our way so far, it would be exciting to see what he has in store next.


...maybe, just maybe, He'd make it so people might see that there is a web or framework to this world. Also, if the idea is that the universe is expanding, He'll give the understanding that it is not conducive to finding 'neighbors'. As an added bonus, he'll let people in on the fact that the bible (+ other Holy books) are required reading for studying particle physics. This is where the the 'laughing god' comes in - He knows we still won't figure it out. 'RelationSHIP'


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 27, 2012)

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 27, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.


...what is cool is that we all have an understanding that is unique to ourselves. "questions that may never be answered" = "mystery" (ok, good)

...what is cool, also, is that this 'uniqueness' we all share is a unique whole that cannot be separated (God). So, now, relationship plays a key role. Like us and breathing, f.e. (ok, also good)

...the mind separates (creates division) for the benefit of the flesh. It compartmentalizes every single event it is aware of (etc.). The compassionate mind creates by not creating (sorry  ) strife.

It is almost like saying 'un-divide and be conquered' (by the real self - the rightful 'king')


----------



## guy incognito (Jan 27, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...okay, cool. Keep it out of the classroom. Likewise, keep science out of things that creationists deem 'unknowable'. To creationists (that I know), it's okay to not know something. That's really the whole of the debate. You want to 'keep it science' in the classroom (...and politics and and). We want to keep it 'unknown' in the affairs of love and hate and blah blah.
> 
> 'Mystery' is not a scientific term, we get that. And, why do you care if when in a scientific setting I say the materials being studied are from God? Do you 'own' the rights to clinical settings? Why are you the enforcer of rules? Aren't those bad?
> 
> Maybe I'll use indents and stuff to look more scientific when speaking to you?


Wait a minute. It's ok to not know something, and that is ok with creationist? Isn't being a creationist by definition accepting a story with no evidence whatsoever instead of saying "I don't know"?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 27, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Wait a minute. It's ok to not know something, and that is ok with creationist? Isn't being a creationist by definition accepting a story with no evidence whatsoever instead of saying "I don't know"?


...wow, I had to turn my head to the side to get that one.

I'm saying life's a mystery, and that's it.


----------



## guy incognito (Jan 27, 2012)

Yeah but i think the very act of being a creationist means you assign an answer to something that is unknowable, rather than simply saying you don't know (as you suggest creationist do).


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 27, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Yeah but i think the very act of being a creationist means you assign an answer to something that is unknowable, rather than simply saying you don't know (as you suggest creationist do).


...well sure, but the act of creation is the mystery. Remember that I said life is a/the mystery. What does the act of creation create? Life, the mystery.

...enjoy the morning, gi


----------



## guy incognito (Jan 27, 2012)

I didn't even read the whole post or thread. I was caught off guard by the oxymoron.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 27, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...what is cool is that we all have an understanding that is unique to ourselves. "questions that may never be answered" = "mystery" (ok, good)
> 
> ...what is cool, also, is that this 'uniqueness' we all share is a unique whole that cannot be separated (God). So, now, relationship plays a key role. Like us and breathing, f.e. (ok, also good)
> 
> ...


how do you even know if there is a separation between mind and matter? and remember, there is only one true definition for god, which is all powerful omnipotent being that created everything who dabbles in mortal affairs. 

maybe instead of using the word god, you could use something like... togetherness?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 27, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I didn't even read the whole post or thread. I was caught off guard by the oxymoron.



... I was also semi winging it as per Brick Top's post.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 27, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> how do you even know if there is a separation between mind and matter? and remember, there is only one true definition for god, *which is all powerful omnipotent being that created everything who dabbles in mortal affairs*.
> 
> maybe instead of using the word god, you could use something like... togetherness?


...sure, but aren't we just smudging the board with semantics in that case?

*the part I've bolded is really cool. It points to the gnostic 'demiurge' - which I happen to think is the human race (the blind creator togetherness  )


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 27, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> how do you even know if there is a separation between mind and matter? and remember, there is only one true definition for god, which is all powerful omnipotent being that created everything who dabbles in mortal affairs.
> 
> maybe instead of using the word god, you could use something like... togetherness?


...and another important question comes of this. What would matter be if we weren't here to observe it? Do we energize it by observation? (Bubba Cush, btw...THAT'S what I'm smokin'  )


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 27, 2012)

[video=youtube;0ElSXo1HWS4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ElSXo1HWS4[/video]

it seems as if the more and more we learn about existence and the universe (especially on the quantum scale), the more we discover just how much we really dont know. 

to tell yourself you do know...hehehe. bah, you have an idea... no, what you have is worse than that... because you have changed the idea into a belief.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 27, 2012)

...thanks Strife, I've studied my share of all kinds of physics. Just want to point out that I'm not making claims. I'm relating my understanding. Belief is not a category in which I place ideas. You can't hold mundane physicality to a belief. So, you lean to the material so you can compute it. I think that's how it goes anyway, right?

...and really, isn't belief evolution by your description?

Imagination, Incubation, Manifestation...Repeat.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 27, 2012)

belief is taking an idea, and making it into a truth instead of leaving it as it is... an idea. 

belief is the evolution of stupidity and ignorance. (attempting to tell yourself you know a truth when you do not)

(speaking of theistic and metaphysical beliefs)


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

I was born and raised in the US Bible Belt (southeast). I held very conservative Christian beliefs until I went off to college and met different people with different views. Today, I consider myself an agnostic. I don't know what to think about the existence of God. I certainly have my doubts.

But I don't discount the possibility of the existence of God either. Even if He was/is just an extraterrestrial being who planted life on Earth. Hell, I don't know. I certainly can't say for sure.

I'm also a believer in science. I'm a Computer Scientist myself. I have a degree in Applied Mathematics, and a Master's Degree in Computer Science. But I doubt that science can account for everything in our universe; especially not in ourselves.

What is love?
Why do we get sad?
Why do we laugh?
Why do we cry?
Why do baby animals like to play?
If pro-creation is indeed among the greatest of human desires, then why are so many people gay? (I'm not bashing gays here; I'm just asking a logical question).

Science as we know it is as far from answering those questions as religion is.

I would love to know that a loving God exists who will give us an eternal life of bliss. I would also love to know that reincarnation is real, and that I'll get a chance to live again from youth and fix all the stupid mistakes I've made in my life. And I'd hate to think that the perpertrators of 9/11 are in heaven right now with 40 virgins apiece.

But the truth is, I don't know. No one does.

Peace to you. And good growing.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 28, 2012)

I think part of the answer to the gays question has to do with uncoupling the sex drive from the mandate to procreate.
It is ime a uniquely Abrahamic perspective that the only holy/authorized expression of sex is to have kids. The real world is more complex and wondrous than that. cn


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I think part of the answer to the gays question has to do with uncoupling the sex drive from the mandate to procreate.
> It is ime a uniquely Abrahamic perspective that the only holy/authorized expression of sex is to have kids. The real world is more complex and wondrous than that. cn


I certainly don't discount that you may be right. I have absolutely no problem with gays. I have gays relatives and friends. But science claims that pro-creation is what drives us to want sex. And the reality of homosexuality is not in line with that. And I don't think science will ever have an answer for that.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 28, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> What is love?
> Why do we get sad?
> Why do we laugh?
> Why do we cry?
> ...


1. Multiple chemical reactions in order for us to pro create, and protect our offspring. It's all a matter of survival.
2. Because we are out of weed... Or probably so we know what to do to make ourselves happy and prosperous.
3. Chuck Norris never cries.
4. It's fun. If you had no feelings, no happiness or sadness... life would be bland. You wouldn't care about anything and you would die easily. 
5. Probably natures way of saying "stop over fucking polluting me with humans, assholes" 

To say Science is as far from answering questions as religion is, I think is a big stretch. Religion does not create knowledge, it is not a source of knowledge, It is only a source of speculation twisted to serve itself.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 28, 2012)

I would appreciate a link to what science says. 
Imo presenting "science" as a monolith of authority misrepresents what is more like berobed Greeks squabbling in the Agora. 
It's very difficult to do science of any sort on the nature of the human sex drive. I would be very very wary of sociologists and those even less rigorous than that profession passing themselves as "scientists". Jmo. cn


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I certainly don't discount that you may be right. I have absolutely no problem with gays. I have gays relatives and friends. But science claims that pro-creation is what drives us to want sex. And the reality of homosexuality is not in line with that. And I don't think science will ever have an answer for that.


Turtles and roaches don't love. Yet they procreate.
Why is playing fun for for baby animals?

You're right in saying that religion does not create knowledege. And that science does. But Heisenberg's (sp?) Uncertainty Principle guarantees that science can't explain everything. There are some things that just can't be known.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 28, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Turtles and roaches don't love. Yet they procreate.
> Why is playing fun for for baby animals?
> 
> You're right in saying that religion does not create knowledege. And that science does. But Heisenberg's (sp?) Uncertainty Principle guarantees that science can't explain everything. There are some things that just can't be known.


How do you know what animals love? I'm sure for some it's just pleasure. There are a lot of questions we will always have and a lot that we can't answer. This is just how it works. In past times we had many questions and the church answered them and it was all wrong. We can't explain things with "God did it" just because science hasn't answered it yet.

We also have to learn to be content with not knowing, or caring! What difference does it really make? Stop dwelling on it, have fun with life, live it, love it, do good things and you should die happy knowing you made the most of it no matter what comes, or doesn't come next.


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

The church certainly has wrongly impeded science in the past. No doubt about that.

Why care? It's fun to look for evidence and just plain speculate sometimes. Friendly discussions among non-combative people with wildly different views was one of my favorite pasttimes in college. While high and tripping. Hell yes!


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 28, 2012)

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says something quite other than that. cn

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

The key quantity here is half of h bar.


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

Heisenburg's uncertainty principle basically says that "not everything can be known". Information at the sub-atomic level is many times hidden from us because of what we have to do to obtain it. Find out where a particle is? Then we must scatter and reflect light light from it; thus impacting it's velocity. Therefore we can't know both it's location AND velocity at the same time.

I'm certainly no expert in physics. But if you have a better "layman's" explaination of Heisenberg, I'd love to hear it. I've read a lot on the subject, but I'm open to challanges to my understanding.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 28, 2012)

Heisenberg's principle becomes important only in the realm of the very small ... or the very fast. Subatomic particles exist in this realm. 
If you combine the above link with the one included here, you'll be on your way. But Heisenberg's theorem most emphatically does not have to do with the broad strokes of epistemology. cn

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html#c2


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 28, 2012)

> &#9829; Heisenberg certainly likes this.


Oh too cool ... cn


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

Which is harder to believe?

1. The universe was created by being called "God".

2. All matter in the universe was once bound together in an infinitely small, infinitely dense point. And at some point it "decided" to explode (expand - Big Bang style) and create the universe (from nothing - as Stephen Hawking recently said)? How did it decide if and when to expand?


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 28, 2012)

I think the problem with the above is that it begs the question by anthropomorphizing. Either way you have an agency deciding. Thus I select option 3. cn


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 28, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Which is harder to believe?
> 
> 1. The universe was created by being called "God".
> 
> 2. All matter in the universe was once bound together in an infinitely small, infinitely dense point. And at some point it "decided" to explode (expand - Big Bang style) and create the universe (from nothing - as Stephen Hawking recently said)? How did it decide if and when to expand?


2? easily? If this being exists I want to know how it was created.


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I think the problem with the above is that it begs the question by anthropomorphizing. Either way you have an agency deciding. Thus I select option 3. cn


Excellent dodge! Kind of like "I have no recollection of that, senator". 

Just kidding, hope you know. You're answers are at least as good as mine...probably better.

Good Growing.


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> 2? easily? If this being exists I want to know how it was created.


So do I. And I'd also like to know how the universe created itself from an infinitely small, infinitely dense point 14 billion years ago.


----------



## Catchin22 (Jan 28, 2012)

...at least one contains something we know exists and the other is completely man made. Try replacing "God" with "Invisible Pink Elephant" It's just as ridiculous as that.


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

300 billion stars per galaxy...billions upon billions of galaxies...and all that matter was once an infinitely small point that "expanded" at some magical moment 14 billion years ago? At least as hard to believe as a divine creator...at least for my simple little mind.


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 28, 2012)

Catchin22 said:


> ...at least one contains something we know exists and the other is completely man made. Try replacing "God" with "Invisible Pink Elephant" It's just as ridiculous as that.


Wait a minute now...I've seen that "Invisible Pink Elephant"...many times while high...I'll be seeing him again in a few minutes...my wife just fired upo the vaporizer


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 28, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Which is harder to believe?
> 
> 1. The universe was created by being called "God".
> 
> 2. All matter in the universe was once bound together in an infinitely small, infinitely dense point. And at some point it "decided" to explode (expand - Big Bang style) and create the universe (from nothing - as Stephen Hawking recently said)? How did it decide if and when to expand?


We do not judge truth value on the difficulty of grasping the concept. You presented these choices as if one is simple and the other is complicated. The logical question to ask is, which one of these explanations makes fewer and less ambiguous assumptions? The big bang theory has specific evidence to back up it's assumptions, evidence which comes from multiple independent lines of research. Every assumption made is reasonable and substantiated. God creating the universe not only makes many unsupported assumptions, the ones it does make are huge. We must not only accept that there is a divine creator, but that he is capable of magic and ignoring every known law of the universe. That he wants to have a special relationship with us, one species on one planet among billions, and he qualifies that relationship by testing if we can believe in him without evidence. Without any substance to back this up, aside from complexity, it becomes indistinguishable from fantasy.

When we do consider complexity, we must also notice that a creator being does nothing to answer the riddle. Any creator capable of creating a complex universe must be at least as complex himself, if not more so. So how do we explain this complex being? Was he created? Was he an accident of randomness? If you are willing to just shrug off the question of who created the creator, then why not shrug off the question of who created the universe. They are in essence the same question.

So while the big bang theory attempts to answer questions and bring us closer to the truth, creationism only serves to compound the mystery and ground it in fantasy.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 28, 2012)

...so on one hand, everything out of nothing (a nothing that always was).

...on the other, everything from everything - that was nothing just before that?

I'm starting to wonder, in terms of leaps, which was easier to make


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I was born and raised in the US Bible Belt (southeast). I held very conservative Christian beliefs until I went off to college and met different people with different views. Today, I consider myself an agnostic. I don't know what to think about the existence of God. I certainly have my doubts


Don't take offense but I would like to point out, you are technically an atheist. You don't (yet?) accept the premise that god exists, therefore you are not a theist and there is only one other category and that's atheist. 


> But I don't discount the possibility of the existence of God either. Even if He was/is just an extraterrestrial being who planted life on Earth. Hell, I don't know. I certainly can't say for sure.


 Most atheists don't discount the possibility of a god either, many of us just think it's very, very unlikely. If you can call an ET god, then that doesn't do anything to answer the question of how life got started, not just on earth, but in general. It's interesting to think about but doesn't really answer any of the real questions. 



> I'm also a believer in science. I'm a Computer Scientist myself. I have a degree in Applied Mathematics, and a Master's Degree in Computer Science. But I doubt that science can account for everything in our universe; especially not in ourselves.


 Not to quibble, but do your degrees give you much training in the scientific method? Most computer scientists I know are great at math but don't even know what the null hypothesis is. Science doesn't attempt to claim to be able to answer every type of question, just the ones about the nature of our cosmos.


> What is love? Love is not a thing, it is a concept. Romantic love? Family love? Your question is too vague and ambiguous.
> Why do we get sad? Neurochemicals
> Why do we laugh? Neurochemicals
> Why do we cry? Neurocehmicals
> Why do baby animals like to play?  Because they are learning. You may as well ask the bigger question about what are instincts and that can be answered but is lengthy.





> If pro-creation is indeed among the greatest of human desires, then why are so many people gay? (I'm not bashing gays here; I'm just asking a logical question).


 Procreation isn't desired, sex is. There is some desire for choosing long-term mates too. Both of these innate desires lead to procreation in heterosexuals but gays have those instincts too. Many people have a desire for offspring, (many don't but still like sex and even relationships) and that is reflected in gay adoption too. We are just a vehicle for our genes. Our genes desire to be spread as far and wide as possible. Most animal behavior, including human can be answered by using this model. 



> Science as we know it is as far from answering those questions as religion is.


 You're nitpicking. Out of all of the big important questions of all of humankind has had, which one has done a better job of coming up with concrete answers? Your questions are not specific enough to be a valid criticism of what science can't answer. 


> I would love to know that a loving God exists who will give us an eternal life of bliss. I would also love to know that reincarnation is real, and that I'll get a chance to live again from youth and fix all the stupid mistakes I've made in my life. And I'd hate to think that the perpertrators of 9/11 are in heaven right now with 40 virgins apiece.
> 
> But the truth is, I don't know. No one does.
> 
> Peace to you. And good growing.


I'd like to see a unicorn shit rainbows but what I want has no bearing on what is reality. Comfort and a desire for answers is what created religion and the god myth but skeptical inquiry has given us more useful answers. Even if some of those answers make me uncomfortable, I prefer to not wear blinders and seek truth where I can find it.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I certainly don't discount that you may be right. I have absolutely no problem with gays. I have gays relatives and friends. *But science claims that pro-creation is what drives us to want sex.* And the reality of homosexuality is not in line with that. And I don't think science will ever have an answer for that.


I have never heard anyone in anthropology or biology make this claim. Do you have any references?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 29, 2012)

Some claim to say that we are actually in a multiverse, that new universes are being born all the time. They actually did a study where they tried to calculate mathematically how much energy is needed to keep the universe expanding at its ever increasing rate. (they say that dark matter/dark energy, is the force contributing to the expansion of our universe) the number they came up with was so small it baffled the scientists. So they tried more experiments and equations and came to the conclusion that the only way the numbers would fit (. -28 0's 1) is if we actually lived in a multiverse. That there are actually different dimensions of spacetime that our eyes cannot detect. Kind of like... imagine being a waterspider, living out your whole life on top of the water, never knowing that there is a whole other universe right below you that you never knew about. 

There is also a group of scientists that think the universe's reproductive organs are actually black holes. The gravity from black holes is so powerful that light cannot even escape it. It is said that as black holes warp the fabric of timespace so drastically, it sucks in all matter and antimatter, condensing it into such a small space, that once it has acquired all the right ingredients to make a universe it does, and depending on if the universe created has the correct natural and physical laws it may create a big bang and expand just as this universe did, or the laws may be unstable and it may collapse in on itself. 

Either way, as we further ourselves into the deeper and deeper layers of quantum physics, and keep trying to find the relationship between general relativity and quantum mechanics, we are finding out at an ever increasing rate just how much we do not know about the universe, or probably more so... the multiverse. 

In my opinion, science and math are much more logical and reasonable than superstition. 

I kind of like the idea of string theory/ M theory. Just think of how much further the human species must go to get more answers about how the universe/multiverse really works.

Also, many people claim that existence has always existed. Is that any harder to imagine than nothing existing before existence? 


Comfort and a desire for answers is what created religion and the god myth but skeptical inquiry has given us more useful answers. Even if some of those answers make me uncomfortable, I prefer to not wear blinders and seek truth where I can find it. Out of all of the big important questions of all of humankind has had, which one has done a better job of coming up with concrete answers? Science or religion? -very nice mindphuk


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Which is harder to believe?
> 1. The universe was created by being called "God".


 Whether it is hard to believe or not, ask yourself if this is really an answer? A universe that comes from an intelligent agent makes me ask more questions than it solves. The infinite regression problem begins here. If god is unexplainable, that's actually one level more complex than just saying the universe is unexplainable. 


> 2. All matter in the universe was once bound together in an infinitely small, infinitely dense point. And at some point it "decided" to explode (expand - Big Bang style) and create the universe (from nothing - as Stephen Hawking recently said)? How did it decide if and when to expand?


You added a question that everyone would like to answer but just because we don't know doesn't mean it is unknowable. I personally like the idea that our universe is actually part of a larger cosmos in higher dimensions. Even without the backing of m-theory, it is certainly something everyone asks at one point -- does our universe exist within anything?


----------



## PbHash (Jan 29, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> Which is harder to believe?
> 
> 1. The universe was created by being called "God".
> 
> 2. All matter in the universe was once bound together in an infinitely small, infinitely dense point. And at some point it "decided" to explode (expand - Big Bang style) and create the universe (from nothing - as Stephen Hawking recently said)? How did it decide if and when to expand?


I think you may be missing a big point, it's not that matter was in an infinitely dense point, theory points more to matter being energy before the big bang. E=mc^2. I will explain.

Before our universe, and still today, there was/is an inflationary field containing extremely high energy levels, a uniform and constant POTIENTIAL energy, and negative pressure (therefore repulsive gravity). This field is similar to an electromagnetic field. You can't see it or feel it but you know it has energy because it does work. So now we have our inflationary field that has a very high potential energy and is expanding faster than the speed of light. How did the university come from this?

Any system with potential energy will exploit an opportunity to release it. This opportunity comes in the form of quantum uncertainty. Energy fields like all things in a quantum universe are subject to this. Quantum uncertainty among an energy field means the fields values will under quantum jitters or up and down fluctuations in it's value. This isn't seen in our everyday life because they are too small to notice. Yet with the incredible amount of energy harbored in the field, these fluctuations would be much larger. Simply put, one of these jitters would knock the field down it's potential energy curve. The resulting decrease in energy and negative pressure ends the encredible expanse.

Now this energy isn't lost, it is converted to matter. E=mc^2. This all happens in the order of about 10^-35 seconds. In this time the tiny area of potential energy would expand by a factor of about 10^30. What we have left is a region in space that is no longer expanding at the rate of the inflationary field, full of matter, uniform temp for example a Universe.


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 29, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Don't take offense but I would like to point out, you are technically an atheist. You don't (yet?) accept the premise that god exists, therefore you are not a theist and there is only one other category and that's atheist.
> Most atheists don't discount the possibility of a god either, many of us just think it's very, very unlikely. If you can call an ET god, then that doesn't do anything to answer the question of how life got started, not just on earth, but in general. It's interesting to think about but doesn't really answer any of the real questions.


I guess you're right about that.

You make good points. My grasp of overall science (non-computer science) is certainly not as large as yours. Maybe that's where God exists for those of us who don't discount His existence; in our lack of understanding. Hell, I don't know.

If God does exist, I wish he would log in here right now and set us all straight.  If I was Him, I would.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2012)

WileyCoyote said:


> I guess you're right about that.
> 
> You make good points. My grasp of overall science (non-computer science) is certainly not as large as yours. Maybe that's where God exists for those of us who don't discount His existence; in our lack of understanding. Hell, I don't know.


Excellent insight. This is basically what many skeptics call the god of the gaps. When people say they don't understand something and insert god as an answer, that's fallacious reasoning because it takes non-understanding and inserts an answer without making any steps in reasoning. 

Don't worry about your overall lack of grasping hard science, anyone that can make it through the mathematics and courses you did certainly has enough intelligence to learn. There is no shame in ignorance, only willful ignorance. 

There are some excellent video series on youtube that might be worth perusing. Here's one from one of the best creators of skeptical videos IMO.

[video=youtube;6OLPL5p0fMg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg[/video]


----------



## WileyCoyote (Jan 29, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Excellent insight. This is basically what many skeptics call the god of the gaps. When people say they don't understand something and insert god as an answer, that's fallacious reasoning because it takes non-understanding and inserts an answer without making any steps in reasoning.
> 
> There are some excellent video series on youtube that might be worth perusing. Here's one from one of the best creators of skeptical videos IMO.


Thanks. I will certainly do that.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 31, 2012)

Customer:
Morning,


Waitress:
Morning.


Customer:
What have you got?


Waitress:
Well, there's Christianity and creationism,
Christianity agnosticism and creationism
Christianity and atheism
Christianity, creationism and atheism
Christianity, creationism, agnosticism and atheism
atheism, creationism, agnosticism and atheism
atheism, Christianity, atheism, atheism, creationism and atheism
atheism, agnosticism, atheism, atheism, atheism, creationism, atheism tomato and atheism
atheism, atheism, atheism, Christianity and atheism
atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, baked beans, atheism, atheism, atheism and atheism. 


(Choir: atheism! atheism! atheism! atheism! Lovely atheism! Lovely atheism!)


Or Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a mornay sauce 
served in a provencale manner with shallots and aubergines
garnished with truffle pate, brandy and fried Christianity on top and atheism.


Wife:
Have you got anything without atheism?


Waitress:
Well, the atheism, Christianity, agnosticism and atheism
That's not got much atheism in it


Wife:
I don't want any atheism!


Customer:
Why can't she have Christianity, creationism, atheism and agnosticism?


Wife:
That's got atheism in it!


Customer:
Hasn't got much atheism in it as atheism, Christianity, agnosticism and atheism has it?


(Choir: atheism! atheism! atheism!...)


Wife:
Could you do me Christianity, creationism, atheism and agnosticism without the atheism, then?


Waitress:
Iiiiiiiiiiiich!!


Wife:
What do you mean 'Iiiiiiiiiich'? I don't like atheism!


(Choir: Lovely atheism! Wonderful atheism!)


Waitress (to choir):
Shut up!


(Choir: Lovely atheism! Wonderful atheism!)


Waitress:
Shut Up! Bloody Vikings!
You can't have Christianity, creationism, atheism and agnosticism without the atheism.


Wife:
I don't like atheism!


Customer:
Shush dear, don't have a fuss. I'll have your atheism. I love it,
I'm having atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, baked beans,
atheism, atheism, atheism, and atheism!


(Choir: atheism! atheism! atheism! atheism! Lovely atheism! Wonderful atheism!)


Waitress:
Shut Up!! Baked beans are off.


Customer:
Well, could I have her atheism instead of the baked beans then?


Waitress:
You mean atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism, atheism,
atheism and atheism?


Choir (intervening):
atheism! atheism! atheism! atheism!
Lovely atheism! Wonderful atheism!


----------



## Beefbisquit (Jan 31, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Customer:
> Morning,
> 
> 
> ...



LOL - what is that from? It sounds British... lol


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 31, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> LOL - what is that from? It sounds British... lol



...that reminds me of a joke (from central canada) "What has 24 legs and 10 teeth? Front row of the western hour"


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 1, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> LOL - what is that from? It sounds British... lol


It reminds me of the Monty Python "Spam" skit, repurposed. cn


----------

