# Zero respect



## Someacdude (Feb 21, 2014)

Gene Simmons can see it , why cant so many others ?



[video]http://www.faithit.com/religious-tolerance-christianity-tebow-simmons/[/video]

Liberals are relativists and hate Christians because Christians believe in absolute truth.
2) Liberals do not want anyone to say that immorality is immoral.
3) Liberals are selfish and are more interested in their "feelings" then they are with what is right for others.
4) Liberals misunderstand what Christians really believe.
5) Since liberals see themselves as the superior enlighten ones they do not recognize that taking a position against their position is not automatically hate.
6) Liberals do not want to listen to what makes sense, they would rather listen to their senses.
7) Liberals ignore the clear evidence of the result of their philosophical positions influence on the last 40 years. It had been a social disaster and they do not want to hear it.
 They see Christians as intellectually inferior.
9) Liberals see Christians as wanting to impose their religion on them when in truth it is the liberals who have used the courts system to impose their secular humanism religion on all of us.
*10) *Liberals are spiritually lost and blind to the truth
- See more at: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=2062#sthash.Jrvm5uuT.dpuf


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 21, 2014)

Gene is a genius businessman.
Not sure if you ever watched the show on A&E.

http://www.aetv.com/gene-simmons-family-jewels/video


----------



## GOD HERE (Feb 22, 2014)

LOL we have another nutcase. I swear the few people that post in here are the craziest of the whole forum. Naveah, Old growth, that other nutjob with a messianic complex...


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Feb 22, 2014)

Hmmm, what happened to the original post?


----------



## midgetaus (Feb 22, 2014)

the guy is a crappy bass player of a rock band... / thread


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Feb 22, 2014)

GOD HERE said:


> LOL we have another nutcase. I swear the few people that post in here are the craziest of the whole forum. Naveah, Old growth, that other nutjob with a messianic complex...


I havent seen OldGrowth post on here in months, he might have been "driven" out because of all the people that mocked him. It seemed like he took more shit then Me.

By the way, whos the "other nutjob with a messianic complex"? 

And I thought I was the only One with a "messianic complex".

~PEACE~


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 22, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Gene Simmons can see it , why cant so many others ?


Do you have any idea how many women Gene Simmons fucked while in KISS' prime?


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 22, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Do you have any idea how many women Gene Simmons fucked while in KISS' prime?




My point exactly , Gene isnt saying he agrees with Tim Teebo at all, what he saying is if he was Muslim , jewish etc no one would DARE take a swing at him just a point about who controlls the media and gets away with anything that suits their ideological agenda.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 22, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> My point exactly , Gene isnt saying he agrees with Tim Teebo at all, what he saying is if he was Muslim , jewish etc no one would DARE take a swing at him just a point about who controlls the media and gets away with anything that suits their ideological agenda.


How many times does this same exact thing have to come up?

Christians are not persecuted in western society. Christians make up the majority of elected officials and the majority of the population. 

If Muslims made up 9 out of 10 elected officials or 8 out of 10 citizens, and we still had the Bill of Rights and the freedom of speech, we'd be talking about them instead. Muslims hold zero power in this country or in western society, same with Jews, same with anything. Christianity dominates western society and pushes it's views down everyone else's throats. 

_That's_ why Christians can sit there and take it, because we have the freedom of speech, religious sensibilities be damned.


----------



## GOD HERE (Feb 22, 2014)

Nevaeh420 said:


> I havent seen OldGrowth post on here in months, he might have been "driven" out because of all the people that mocked him. It seemed like he took more shit then Me.
> 
> By the way, whos the "other nutjob with a messianic complex"?
> 
> ...


No actually, you're not the only nut job with a messianic complex on here as of a few days ago. I saw another but I can't remember his name off the top of my head.


----------



## Pinworm (Feb 22, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Gene Simmons


[video=youtube;na9ZZ4ZjVa8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na9ZZ4ZjVa8[/video]

Wewps. Wrong Simmons. Still the better Simmons.


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Feb 23, 2014)

GOD HERE said:


> No actually, you're not the only nut job with a messianic complex on here as of a few days ago. I saw another but I can't remember his name off the top of my head.


I saw some person on RIU, that had a username called "The Messiah", I think. I only saw "The Messiah" only make his FIRST post. 

I said, "Look, I found "The Messiah"", or something like that. This was a few months ago.

~PEACE~


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 23, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How many times does this same exact thing have to come up?
> 
> Christians are not persecuted in western society. Christians make up the majority of elected officials and the majority of the population.
> 
> ...


See that's the thing. real Christians *would never *run for any political office .
When Jesus was on earth, as the son of God , NOT god , he made it perfectly clear that Christians are not part of any political office.
When Jesus was before Pilet he said . 'My kingdon is no part of this world, if my kingdom was part of this world my attendants would have fought so that i may be delivered up to you'

Your point is moot, Christians are indeed held in a less than favorable light, mostly because there are so many false ones out there. 
Please dont tell me there arent entire threads devoted to poking fun, belittling etc of Christians on this very forum,,,,evidently they DO NOT have free speech anywhere , especially here.

Ive seen your posts and others , so let me ask you a question,,,,,Why?

If you see yourself as so intellectually superior , then why waste time on people you consider inferior ?


----------



## Greatest I am (Feb 24, 2014)

Free thinkers and those of reason and logic will always have a problem with those of faith and delusion. Faith is synonymous to delusion to those who think.

Regards
DL


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 24, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Gene Simmons can see it , why cant so many others ?
> 
> 
> 1) Liberals are relativists and hate Christians because Christians believe in absolute truth.


I don't hate anyone because they believe in absolute truth, I just think they have unfounded beliefs. How can there be absolute truth based on something unproven? It doesn't make sense, at all. 




> 2)





> Liberals do not want anyone to say that immorality is immoral.


No, liberals don't want someone telling them what is immoral based on *their* religious views. Do you want Muslims to demand that all men must have a beard, and women must wear hijabs? When you can understand why it's not ok for Muslims to demand others wear their religious garments, or practice their religious beliefs, you'll understand why atheists don't want to be told how to behave based on *your* religious beliefs. Keep it to yourself. 




> 3)





> Liberals are selfish and are more interested in their "feelings" then they are with what is right for others.


It's typically religious people telling others what they must or can't do. Liberals want people to have the freedom to decide for themselves, e.g. pro-*choice, *and supporting gay rights.




> 4)





> Liberals misunderstand what Christians really believe.


That a sky dady created everything including us, but he created us *flawed*. Then blamed us for *how he created us*. 

His solution was to have a son, that is also a man, that he would sacrifice to himself to expunge humanity of sins (that were a result of god creating us flawed). 

...and somehow, because of all of this Christians feel they should tell others what they can, and cannot do. 

Makes sense. 




> 5)





> Since liberals see themselves as the superior enlighten ones they do not recognize that taking a position against their position is not automatically hate.


I'm not intellectually superior to theists, although I do feel I have more of an understanding of 'the burden of proof' and critical thinking, than most Christians. 




> 6)





> Liberals do not want to listen to what makes sense, they would rather listen to their senses.


If you define 'what makes sense' as 'what is written in the bible' you are correct, I would rather base my actions on empirical evidence. The bible is a mish-mash of contradictions that's been translated dozens of times, been cherry picked, and slapped back together by councils and the like, over Milena....




> 7)





> Liberals ignore the clear evidence of the result of their philosophical positions influence on the last 40 years. It had been a social disaster and they do not want to hear it.


As opposed to the 'dark ages' where Christianity had it's hands in everything? 




>





> They see Christians as intellectually inferior.


Depends if they make simple mistakes in reasoning, and come to false conclusions based on wishy-washy evidence....




> 9)





> Liberals see Christians as wanting to impose their religion on them when in truth it is the liberals who have used the courts system to impose their secular humanism religion on all of us.


People have the right to not be bombarded with religion in public spaces. No one is stopping religious people from practicing their religion, on the other hand atheists are denied government positions and ostracized for their beliefs. Fact.

*



10)

Click to expand...

*


> Liberals are spiritually lost and blind to the truth


If you think praying to a "Jewish, cosmic zombie, wizard" is finding the truth, I have no comment. You are beyond help.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 24, 2014)

It isn't possible for me to understand how you can possibly believe what you believe... I mean, I believed some crazy shit when I was younger, but Christianity seems so blatantly incorrect to me. 

There's so many contradictions, and things that don't make sense. There's virtually zero evidence to support any of it, and Christians treat it like it's completely factual, and as if everyone should act the same way as they do. 

If you want to believe in Christ, or Santa, or demons, or the loch ness smonster for all I care, *go to town*, bud. But leave me out of your 'crazy', and for fuck sakes, don't try to make any laws based on your beliefs to make other people conform to the insanity.


----------



## midgetaus (Feb 24, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> It isn't possible for me to understand how you can possibly believe what you believe... I mean, I believed some crazy shit when I was younger, but Christianity seems so blatantly incorrect to me.
> 
> There's so many contradictions, and things that don't make sense. There's virtually zero evidence to support any of it, and Christians treat it like it's completely factual, and as if everyone should act the same way as they do.
> 
> If you want to believe in Christ, or Santa, or demons, or the loch ness smonster for all I care, *go to town*, bud. But leave me out of your 'crazy', and for fuck sakes, don't try to make any laws based on your beliefs to make other people conform to the insanity.



well said


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 24, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> It isn't possible for me to understand how you can possibly believe what you believe... I mean, I believed some crazy shit when I was younger, but Christianity seems so blatantly incorrect to me.
> 
> There's so many contradictions, and things that don't make sense. There's virtually zero evidence to support any of it, and Christians treat it like it's completely factual, and as if everyone should act the same way as they do.
> 
> If you want to believe in Christ, or Santa, or demons, or the loch ness smonster for all I care, *go to town*, bud. But leave me out of your 'crazy', and for fuck sakes, *don't try to make any laws based on your beliefs *to make other people conform to the insanity.


TADAAAAAAAAAAA NICE , But you didnt read, Christians dont become involved in politics , thats part of the problem.
Why cant some of you comprehend , Real Christians are neutral.
In the lords prayer Jesus taught us to pray for gods Kingdom, why would someone pray for one a work towards another.


----------



## tyler.durden (Feb 24, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> TADAAAAAAAAAAA NICE , But you didnt read, Christians dont become involved in politics , thats part of the problem.
> Why cant some of you comprehend , Real Christians are neutral.
> In the lords prayer Jesus taught us to pray for gods Kingdom, why would someone pray for one a work towards another.


In saying Real Christians you are using a logical fallacy known as No True Scotsman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
In other words, any christian sect can say the same thing about any other christian sect, 'they are not _true_ christians.'


----------



## joe macclennan (Feb 24, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How many times does this same exact thing have to come up?
> 
> Christians are not persecuted in western society. Christians make up the majority of elected officials and the majority of the population.
> 
> ...


well said


Someacdude said:


> TADAAAAAAAAAAA NICE , But you didnt read, Christians dont become involved in politics , thats part of the problem.
> Why cant some of you comprehend , Real Christians are neutral.
> .


riiiiight because for two thousand years christians haven't persecuted others for differing beliefs

totally neutral unh huh!~ nods head dumbly


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 25, 2014)

joe macclennan said:


> well said
> 
> 
> riiiiight because for two thousand years christians haven't persecuted others for differing beliefs
> ...


You are defining Christians as something they are not. It is very clear that Christians are in politics, as T.D. pointed out, you're using the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy to explain your position.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 25, 2014)

Unless you're a hippy, that gives all worldly possessions away, and follows all the rules of the O.T., you're not a real Christian. 

Jesus didn't appear to change the laws of the old testament (John 14:15), Jesus appeared as a sword of his father to kill and vanquish non-Christians/blasphemers. (Matthew 10:34)

If you actually read the bible, there aren't any real Christians because we would throw them all in jail for killing anyone wearing a cotton blend t-shirt or for working on the sabbath.... that is *real* Christianity. Straight from the bible.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 25, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> Unless you're a hippy, that gives all worldly possessions away, and follows all the rules of the O.T., you're not a real Christian.
> 
> Jesus didn't appear to change the laws of the old testament (John 14:15), Jesus appeared as a sword of his father to kill and vanquish non-Christians/blasphemers. (Matthew 10:34)
> 
> If you actually read the bible, there aren't any real Christians because we would throw them all in jail for killing anyone wearing a cotton blend t-shirt or for working on the sabbath.... that is *real* Christianity. Straight from the bible.


It is not a material view that will provide satisfaction about these subjects. Your view is more material and you're talking about spiritual subjects.

Consciousness sees without any conditioning. Someone who is really 'awake' knows that the material and the void have their existence in the same moment.

Too spiritual / one-sided
Too material / one-sided

No one wins.

[video=youtube;YNBTKFQzjq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNBTKFQzjq8&amp;feature=kp[/video]

(hehe)


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 25, 2014)

Here is something I find curious. Many people are apt to call-out those in the past who took scriptures literally - while doing the exact same thing themselves.

*actually, that literal perspective is their platform for argument


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 25, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> Here is something I find curious. Many people are apt to call-out those in the past who took scriptures literally - while doing the exact same thing themselves.
> 
> *actually, that literal perspective is their platform for argument


If every Christian said the bible was fables, there would be no issue. The problem is, most Christians don't. 

Or they take *some* things literally, like kill homosexuals, but they're totally cool with working on Sunday and not owning slaves. 


It's hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## Sand4x105 (Feb 25, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> If every Christian said the bible were fables, there would be no issue. The problem is, most Christians don't.
> ...
> hypocrisy .


I just wanted to make sure everyone that read that would read it twice...

Christians need a cross over...
Someone that says: New Testament Bible mostly happened, believe on jesus....
And, well, the old testament is not true and just a collection of stories about another time...
The bible is obviously not a factual book... however, if christians believe it's the 'word of god'...
well then they must believe the word of god as is or it will be an affront to their own 'faith'...
for if you only have the faith [the size of] a mustard seed....
Bla...bla...bla...
I escaped an christian upbringing....
Christians... you can too, if you put your hand right on the computer screen right now...
I will through the wonders of radio frequency, transform your mind to a reality based one...
Amen... and amen...
Praise be to god on the highest... amen and amen...
in all things,....


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 25, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> If every Christian said the bible was fables, there would be no issue. The problem is, most Christians don't.
> 
> Or they take *some* things literally, like kill homosexuals, but they're totally cool with working on Sunday and not owning slaves.
> 
> ...


And the rest of the world has no hypocrites? Most televised 'Christians' have their own agenda, not the ones I know personally.

The originating concept vs. how people respond to it are 2 different things.

Nuclear power as the prime example.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 25, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> And the rest of the world has no hypocrites? Most televised 'Christians' have their own agenda, not the ones I know personally.
> 
> The originating concept vs. how people respond to it are 2 different things.
> 
> Nuclear power as the prime example.


I didn't say the rest of the world didn't have hypocrites. Are you suggesting that because they're Christian we should let it slide? See what I did there? 

I can't speak to the Christians you know personally, I can however, speak to the ones *I *know. 

They follow the bits and pieces of the bible that they want to, and cast the rest aside, all the while demanding it's the perfect (yet seemingly un-followed) word of god.

IMO, once you're a Christian, you don't need 'your own agenda', you already have the churches.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 25, 2014)

When I was studying to become a pastor, I realized that most people hadn't read the Bible in it's entirety and even fewer knew the TRUE origin of the books of the Bible. If they knew the real story, there would be many fewer christians around today.


----------



## tyler.durden (Feb 25, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> And the rest of the world has no hypocrites? Most televised 'Christians' have their own agenda, not the ones I know personally.
> 
> The originating concept vs. how people respond to it are 2 different things.
> 
> Nuclear power as the prime example.


Hey, Eye. Sorry to jump in. Don't all christians have the same agenda? Cheat death (and worse, hell) by believing in christ, therefore get to go to heaven? Are there any christians who's agenda is not to attain the goal of heaven?


----------



## Skuxx (Feb 25, 2014)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Eye. Sorry to jump in. Don't all christians have the same agenda? Cheat death (and worse, hell) by believing in christ, therefore get to go to heaven? Are there any christians who's agenda is not to attain the goal of heaven?


There are so many types of people and groups of people that call themselves christians. There are surely some that don't believe in the stereotypical heaven or afterlife beliefs. I know many personally that don't believe in any kind of hell. I think some might say "heaven and hell are in your head" or something... but holding onto a christian label for whatever reason.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 25, 2014)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Eye. Sorry to jump in. Don't all christians have the same agenda? Cheat death (and worse, hell) by believing in christ, therefore get to go to heaven? Are there any christians who's agenda is not to attain the goal of heaven?


Dude 

Yes, the agenda is Heaven. However, the agenda has different skins, so to speak. I was not taught to cheat death, but instead to try and be less fearful of it so as to live.

It always seems like scriptures take place outside but the inside is where it all happens first. It's not just about believing in Christ, we all have to walk the walk. Believing in 'Him' is not the end of religious attainment it is more like the beginning. Finding Him is the quest. That happens in the world inside, in the mind. We're all fighting for peace of mind. The mind fights back because of past conditioning.

ftr - Christ is not the only term I would use to explain the idea. That name happens to be the West's way of talking about consciousness. Consciousness has no name, but we need one to be able to relate it. I see heaven as pure consciousness that we cannot comprehend while tending to the desires of the (negative aspects of) ego.


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 25, 2014)

tyler.durden said:


> In saying Real Christians you are using a logical fallacy known as No True Scotsman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
> In other words, any christian sect can say the same thing about any other christian sect, 'they are not _true_ christians.'


Thats old worn out nonsense.
Prove it with the bible.

Again, religion and God are completely different things, Most religions teach iots ok to kill as long as its in war, whats the Bible say?

Jesus said that true Christians would be known by there works, and im not talking about so called christians who go on their Church mission to Hati to 'help' with rebuilding, then post 100 pics of them at the beach and 10 of them feeding starving children.

Believe it or not i despise religion because it has simply turned into big business, i believe the Catholic Church has amassed so much wealth it was the earths 4th largest land owner, Ask yourself, when Jesus was on earth, he was a carpenter, he dressed,,,,,,as a carpenter, he didnt wear a crown until the end and that one was made of thorns. Now even that is suspect to weather one believes ib the Bible, But, there a hundreds of scrolls that mention him NOT in the bible. Jesus didnt own anything, look at The Bakers tammy fae and her gay husband , actually gay and he was a minister.

I get it, i really do, but because of all those people so many wont even open the book and so many despise it for no other reason thaqn that number 1, they have never read it, and lets be honest, it in fashion.

It is a awesome historical text , maybe not through and through, it also tells its story warts and all, imagine temple prostitutes , fratricide , murders, rapes, theft , King David had one of his 10 mighty men basically murdered so he could have his wife and those people where united under one religion and they got into that much trouble.

If people really followed the scripture there would be no war, no greed , no hunger and yet so many chose to make a dollar off it, i get it.

But arent you curious about whats REALLY in it? Why it was a offense punishable by death to even own one all the while they where burning witches at the stake?

The way it was held from people and translated by tensdale who was ,,,,,,,,,,,put to death. 
Throughout history there have been true Christians, they arent the majority and they dont use it to gain power or money.

There is a difference 

I think its important, i think people deserve to know that the Bible and religion and NOT the same thing.


----------



## tyler.durden (Feb 25, 2014)

Skuxx said:


> There are so many types of people and groups of people that call themselves christians. There are surely some that don't believe in the stereotypical heaven or afterlife beliefs. I know many personally that don't believe in any kind of hell. I think some might say "heaven and hell are in your head" or something... but holding onto a christian label for whatever reason.


Hey Skuxx. That's interesting. My mother was christian scientist, and they believe heaven is all around us and that this material world is an illusion. When you die, you simply slip into the plane of heaven and lose this illusion. Or some such shit. I know that the Vatican recently decreed (by fiat, as usual) that there is no hell. I did a cursory google search and couldn't find christian sects that don't believe in heaven, could you provide some links?


----------



## tyler.durden (Feb 25, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> Dude
> 
> Yes, the agenda is Heaven. However, the agenda has different skins, so to speak. I was not taught to cheat death, but instead to try and be less fearful of it so as to live.
> 
> ...


Groovy .....


----------



## tyler.durden (Feb 25, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Thats old worn out nonsense.


What is? The NTS fallacy? 



> Prove it with the bible.


Prove what with the bible? What a true christian is? I don't think one can objectively do that...


> Again, religion and God are completely different things, Most religions teach iots ok to kill as long as its in war, whats the Bible say?


The bible says a lot of stuff, much of it contradictory...


> Jesus said that true Christians would be known by there works,


He also said that the only way through heaven is through belief in him, and how one should treat one's slaves...



> and im not talking about so called christians who go on their Church mission to Hati to 'help' with rebuilding, then post 100 pics of them at the beach and 10 of them feeding starving children.


LOL...


> Believe it or not i despise religion because it has simply turned into big business, i believe the Catholic Church has amassed so much wealth it was the earths 4th largest land owner, Ask yourself, when Jesus was on earth, he was a carpenter, he dressed,,,,,,as a carpenter, he didnt wear a crown until the end and that one was made of thorns. Now even that is suspect to weather one believes ib the Bible, But,* there a hundreds of scrolls that mention him NOT in the bible.* Jesus didnt own anything, look at The Bakers tammy fae and her gay husband , actually gay and he was a minister.


Would you provide links to the bolded above? I wasn't aware of any text outside of the bible that mentions him at the time...



> I get it, i really do, but because of all those people so many wont even open the book and so many despise it for no other reason thaqn that number 1, they have never read it, and lets be honest, it in fashion.


Atheists like to joke that the quickest cure for christianity is to actually sit down and read the bible cover to cover  IMO, It is an arduous, boring, confusing and horrifying read. I've done it twice...



> It is a awesome historical text , maybe not through and through, it also tells its story warts and all, imagine temple prostitutes , fratricide , murders, rapes, theft , King David had one of his 10 mighty men basically murdered so he could have his wife and those people where united under one religion and they got into that much trouble.


I'm not sure awesome is the best adjective to describe the bible. I'd say it's more aweful, as in causing feeling of fear and wonder. In just looking up these two words, they both seem to be based in fear. Interesting...


> If people really followed the scripture there would be no war, no greed , no


It would be okay for the in group, not so much for anyone outside of it. There would also be brutal slayings for petty transgressions, slavery, rampant misogyny, and acceptable bigotry toward minority groups...


> hunger and yet so many chose to make a dollar off it, i get it.


True dat...



> But arent you curious about whats REALLY in it? Why it was a offense punishable by death to even own one all the while they where burning witches at the stake?


 Not anymore, been through it a lot...



> The way it was held from people and translated by tensdale who was ,,,,,,,,,,,put to death.
> Throughout history there have been true Christians, they arent the majority and they dont use it to gain power or money.


There's that True Christians phrase again. Would you kindly post the parts of the bible that state what it takes to be one of those?


> There is a difference
> 
> I think its important, i think people deserve to know that the Bible and religion and NOT the same thing.


No, but both have some pretty negative consequences...


----------



## kpmarine (Feb 26, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Thats old worn out nonsense.
> Prove it with the bible.
> 
> Again, religion and God are completely different things, Most religions teach iots ok to kill as long as its in war, whats the Bible say?
> ...


The bible has multiple accounts of god commanding war against people. From what I remember from my strong's concordance; "murder" is what the 10 commandments spoke of. Ignoring self defense, the bible says it's cool to beat your slave to death; provided he dies a few days later.

It's a crap historical text. Many events it claims to have happened have no other recorded record. If egypt had a period where frogs rained from the sky; rivers turned to friggin blood; there were days of darkness; every firstborn died; pillars of fire came down from the sky; and their pharoah and most of their elite forces were killed while riding though a path in the red sea; they would have written that down. That would have destroyed that region in a rather significant way.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 26, 2014)

Jesus never claimed divinity. All the theology we get about the resurrection, etc comes from Paul and those forging his name and does not come from Jesus. Jesus never came to save the world from their sins as so many people like to think. Jesus was merely an apocalyptic preacher. His message was that the time is near, God is coming back soon. Get right with each other and live a good life. He is NOT the son of man that is spoken of in the old testament and he never claims to be. In fact he speaks about someone else coming after him. 

The Bible never says we will go live in heaven and the traditional christian concept of hell is a Greek addition not one you will find in the Bible.


----------



## kpmarine (Feb 26, 2014)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Jesus never claimed divinity. All the theology we get about the resurrection, etc comes from Paul and those forging his name and does not come from Jesus. Jesus never came to save the world from their sins as so many people like to think. Jesus was merely an apocalyptic preacher. His message was that the time is near, God is coming back soon. Get right with each other and live a good life. He is NOT the son of man that is spoken of in the old testament and he never claims to be. In fact he speaks about someone else coming after him.
> 
> The Bible never says we will go live in heaven and the traditional christian concept of hell is a Greek addition not one you will find in the Bible.


He claims to be the son of god multiple times. Unless you feel the bible is fallacious. I don't see a reason to disagree that the bible is flawed; given its generally contradictory nature.


----------



## kpmarine (Feb 26, 2014)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Jesus never claimed divinity. All the theology we get about the resurrection, etc comes from Paul and those forging his name and does not come from Jesus. Jesus never came to save the world from their sins as so many people like to think. Jesus was merely an apocalyptic preacher. His message was that the time is near, God is coming back soon. Get right with each other and live a good life. He is NOT the son of man that is spoken of in the old testament and he never claims to be. In fact he speaks about someone else coming after him.
> 
> The Bible never says we will go live in heaven and the traditional christian concept of hell is a Greek addition not one you will find in the Bible.


How is that white separatist group faring, by the way?


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 26, 2014)

The bible IS fallacious! You may know the bible, but you apparently don't know ABOUT the bible. 
Also He claimed that he and everyone else was a son of God; in the same way we say someone is a "son of a bitch" or "son of a dog". It means they have the characteristic of a bitch or a dog, NOT that he is one. 
Also if you want to use the Bible John 10:34 says "Jesus answered, &#8220;Is it not written in your law, &#8216;I said, you are gods&#8217;?". But really, I don't like John. It wasn't written by John, you know? It is the only book in the Gospel that claims any kind of divinity for Jesus. It was also written many years after Jesus' death. Mark was based on oral tradition; Mathew and Luke were based on Mark. John was written for the purpose of advancing someones theology and nothing more.


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 26, 2014)

NietzscheKeen said:


> The bible IS fallacious! You may know the bible, but you apparently don't know ABOUT the bible.
> Also He claimed that he and everyone else was a son of God; in the same way we say someone is a "son of a bitch" or "son of a dog". It means they have the characteristic of a bitch or a dog, NOT that he is one.
> Also if you want to use the Bible John 10:34 says "Jesus answered, &#8220;Is it not written in your law, &#8216;I said, you are gods&#8217;?". But really, I don't like John. It wasn't written by John, you know? It is the only book in the Gospel that claims any kind of divinity for Jesus. It was also written many years after Jesus' death. Mark was based on oral tradition; Mathew and Luke were based on Mark. John was written for the purpose of advancing someones theology and nothing more.


Impressive , one piece of the puzzle , Jesus wasnt saying he was God, and he never did. In fact the idea of a multifaceted God has its roots in Babylon .
Jesus was answering someone who knew full wel what he meant, in fact he was calling them out.
May times he used the phrase' you yourself said it' meaning 'thats on you' 

One thing to keep in mind, Jesus never hurt anyone, he spoke to people so far outside his social dynamic that sometimes the people where actually surprised he was speaking to them.
He warned that after his death 'oppressive wolves would enter and mislead many' 
Most of what people know about the Bible comes from those oppressive wolves so its incorrect.

All im saying is , there is no reason to hate the Bible, people use it to their own designs, they abuse others in its name.
Imagine Jesus sending tanks to kill innocent people 

The new Testament is our letter from a creator , its actually easier to understand in Greek. Reads like the punctuation mark is in the front of the sentence instead of the back.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 26, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Impressive , one piece of the puzzle , Jesus wasnt saying he was God, and he never did. In fact the idea of a multifaceted God has its roots in Babylon .
> Jesus was answering someone who knew full wel what he meant, in fact he was calling them out.
> May times he used the phrase' you yourself said it' meaning 'thats on you'
> 
> ...


The new testament was written by people who had very little understanding of the world, decades or even centuries after the events happened. I fail to see how that is a 'letter from our creator'.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 26, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Impressive , one piece of the puzzle , Jesus wasnt saying he was God, and he never did. In fact the idea of a multifaceted God has its roots in Babylon .
> Jesus was answering someone who knew full wel what he meant, in fact he was calling them out.
> May times he used the phrase' you yourself said it' meaning 'thats on you'
> 
> ...


You know Jesus didn't write the New Testament, right? As to Jesus, speaking to people outside of his social group... that's complete BS. Take Mark 7:24-30 and Mathew 15:21-28 Most people take the story of the Syrophoenician woman as a way of showing Jesus' grace and kindness to everyone. But what most Christians fail to notice is that it is only after Jesus tells her she is below him and not worth his time and she in turn admits that she is below even the lowest Jew that Jesus heals her daughter. Some loving savior indeed. 

And with whole multifaceted God thing... it wasn't until the Greeks and Romans were involved did we ever see any reference to a Trinity. To be honest, I really don't understand the points you are trying to make. Maybe you could run them by me again? Also, may I ask how you know it is easier to understand in Greek?


----------



## dbkick (Feb 26, 2014)

midgetaus said:


> the guy is a crappy bass player of a rock band... / thread


pffffttt, I suppose you can do better? Jealous much?


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 26, 2014)

NietzscheKeen said:


> You know Jesus didn't write the New Testament, right? As to Jesus, speaking to people outside of his social group... that's complete BS. Take Mark 7:24-30 and Mathew 15:21-28 Most people take the story of the Syrophoenician woman as a way of showing Jesus' grace and kindness to everyone. But what most Christians fail to notice is that it is only after Jesus tells her she is below him and not worth his time and she in turn admits that she is below even the lowest Jew that Jesus heals her daughter. Some loving savior indeed.
> 
> And with whole multifaceted God thing... it wasn't until the Greeks and Romans were involved did we ever see any reference to a Trinity. To be honest, I really don't understand the points you are trying to make. Maybe you could run them by me again? Also, may I ask how you know it is easier to understand in Greek?


Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman at the well, jews and Samaritans DIDNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. However you are wrong and i think your hatred has blinded you , Jesus didnt run her down or make sure she knew she was beneath him at all, in fact not only did he encourage her, he admitted he was the Christ once she asked. How you got anything else out of that is beyond me, but if you are only here to be disruptive i hope you let me know.
Its not like im perfect or dont make mistakes, but one thing im not is hateful and deceptive and i can back up scripture with scripture

I study ancient Greek

And you are wrong about the trinity,it was a Babylonian false god.

Take everything you know about religion and throw it out the window.

Was Jesus impaled on a cross?
Absolutelynot, the Romans impaled on a stake or stamos. The idea was to keep ones arms above their head so a person would drown on their own juices.

Even to the point where it was prophesied that Jesus would suffer and die but not a bone would be broken, why, because on the day the Romans came to break his legs so he couldnt support his weight anymore he was already dead.


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 26, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> The new testament was written by people who had very little understanding of the world, decades or even centuries after the events happened. I fail to see how that is a 'letter from our creator'.


Evidently my other post disappeared 
Paul was educated at the feet of Gamaliel a renowned Roman teacher, he wrote more books than anyone else, luke was a Doctor, im not typing the rest of it again


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 26, 2014)

IT'S THE SAME THING WITH THE SAMARITAN WOMAN! He treats her like a slave and talks down to her. Geez! You people have been so indoctrinated with this feel good God and Jesus love everyone bs that you can't see what the Bible actually says! And I'm not even reading between the lines. You do know that God hates people and treats them like crap for no reason sometimes? That's in the Bible. Romans 9:13-16

Actually, Paul only wrote Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon. Biblical Scholars haven't believed the author of The Gospel of Luke or The Acts to be a physician since around the 1920's. Besides, it wasn't Luke who wrote Luke and Acts. I'm just trying to tell you what you apparently don't want to hear. How is the trinity a babylonian false god? I know you're referring to Nimrod and the other guys. But it wasn't only the babylonians that had a three person god-head. The egyptians did as well and there is much to be said about the similarities between Jesus and Horus.


----------



## tyler.durden (Feb 26, 2014)

NietzscheKeen said:


> IT'S THE SAME THING WITH THE SAMARITAN WOMAN! He treats her like a slave and talks down to her. Geez! You people have been so indoctrinated with this feel good God and Jesus love everyone bs that you can't see what the Bible actually says! And I'm not even reading between the lines. You do know that God hates people and treats them like crap for no reason sometimes? That's in the Bible. Romans 9:13-16
> 
> Actually, Paul only wrote Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon. Biblical Scholars haven't believed the author of The Gospel of Luke or The Acts to be a physician since around the 1920's. Besides, it wasn't Luke who wrote Luke and Acts. I'm just trying to tell you what you apparently don't want to hear. How is the trinity a babylonian false god? I know you're referring to Nimrod and the other guys. But it wasn't only the babylonians that had a three person god-head. The egyptians did as well and *there is much to be said about the similarities between Jesus and Horus.*


*
*
Right, Horus & Osiris. Much to be said is putting it kindly, christianity is almost a blow by blow retelling of this myth. When I was younger, I wondered how anyone could read this story that was written thousands of years before christianity, and still believe the christian story was true. It's not even original...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 26, 2014)

^ Cain and Able (oops), Jacob and Esau, Birthright and the Suppressor. To me it's the same story. No reason? The reason is the free will people deny exists. Action and reaction are the other 2 parts of freewill which is likely why no one wants to see it. All that the human animal wants is action.




If the devil did not exist inside there would be no way to evolve. The big problem is that everyone, believers and non-believers, think the devil exists somewhere outside and is identifiable. That's the 'trick', I guess.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 26, 2014)

***Deleted because rude***


----------



## Skuxx (Feb 26, 2014)

tyler.durden said:


> [/B]
> Right, Horus & Osiris. Much to be said is putting it kindly, christianity is almost a blow by blow retelling of this myth. When I was younger, I wondered how anyone could read this story that was written thousands of years before christianity, and still believe the christian story was true. It's not even original...


Most of the similarities between the horus/jesus stories have been debunked. There are similarities though don't get me wrong.


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 26, 2014)

NietzscheKeen said:


> IT'S THE SAME THING WITH THE SAMARITAN WOMAN! He treats her like a slave and talks down to her. Geez! You people have been so indoctrinated with this feel good God and Jesus love everyone bs that you can't see what the Bible actually says! And I'm not even reading between the lines. You do know that God hates people and treats them like crap for no reason sometimes? That's in the Bible. Romans 9:13-16
> 
> Actually, Paul only wrote Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon. Biblical Scholars haven't believed the author of The Gospel of Luke or The Acts to be a physician since around the 1920's. Besides, it wasn't Luke who wrote Luke and Acts. I'm just trying to tell you what you apparently don't want to hear. How is the trinity a babylonian false god? I know you're referring to Nimrod and the other guys. But it wasn't only the babylonians that had a three person god-head. The egyptians did as well and there is much to be said about the similarities between Jesus and Horus.


He treats her like a slave because he asks for a drink of water? Normally Jews wouldn't even talk to Samaritans , did you read this again or are you just going off memory?

Treats people like crap for no reason? Let me ask you something, are people supposed to be able to do whatever they want and thats ok, or only if it interfers with what you want to do.
EVERYBODY has rules, everybody. Some are more lax due to their ethics or moral standing, but if there is a creator , i think he should have a say in how we live our lives.

Or do you believe the original lie, the first one ever told in Genesis , where Satan told Eve that God didnt want her to eat the fruit from the tree of good and bad because God KNEW she would be like him, knowing good and bad?

Check out the last few thousand years, mankind isnt doing so well, in fact the entire world is heading for a financial melt down like none ever seen. War, conflict , greed ,hunger, more people enslaved now than ever. And the Bible is a fairy tale and bs? I would have to say that mans ability to man is a lie and bs. Just like the Bible says, Man has dominated man to his injury.

Ok since i was wrong about Paul, who wrote more books in the Greek scriptures?

Remember many of the things written in the Bible are illustrations, Jesus even said that he spoke that way, so the unlearned one scriptural could learn.

Read the book , throw away the nonsense you have been told about it and just read it, what could it hurt?

A trinity God is false because well, what have they done? The religious organizations who preach this say its A holy mystery' The only mystery to me is why would anyone believe it.

In order to understand anything , you first have to understand why , where and how. the trinity was introduced to encourage membership in religions who cared more about membership and money than the truth. Just like so many other things. If something is rooted in false religion , if that where it started then thats what it is, you cant turn a turd back into a cheeseburger.


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 26, 2014)

tyler.durden said:


> [/B]
> Right, Horus & Osiris. Much to be said is putting it kindly, christianity is almost a blow by blow retelling of this myth. When I was younger, I wondered how anyone could read this story that was written thousands of years before christianity, and still believe the christian story was true. It's not even original...


Horus & Osiris a proven myth , one that even many scholars dont put faith in quote , Scholars have tried to discern the exact nature of the events that gave rise to the story, but they have reached no definitive conclusions. Parts of the myth appear in a wide variety of Egyptian texts, from funerary texts and magical spells to short stories. The story is, therefore, more detailed and more cohesive than any other ancient Egyptian myth. Yet no Egyptian source gives a full account of the myth, and the sources vary widely in their versions of events. Greek and Roman writings, particularly _De Iside et Osiride_ by Plutarch, provide more information but may not always accurately reflect Egyptian beliefs. Through these writings, the Osiris myth persisted after knowledge of most ancient Egyptian beliefs was lost, and it is still well known today.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 26, 2014)

Skuxx said:


> Most of the similarities between the horus/jesus stories have been debunked. There are similarities though don't get me wrong.


I've heard this too. Idk either way really. It's tough to figure out who the authorities are on this subject. They say the same thing about Krishna as well but they go by the hindu calendar which changes every year sorta like the islamic calendat, so idk how they could really say for certain. I've also never really heard much about his birth despite running off with the Hare Krishnas for a year or so.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 27, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Evidently my other post disappeared
> Paul was educated at the feet of Gamaliel a renowned Roman teacher, he wrote more books than anyone else, luke was a Doctor, im not typing the rest of it again


Ok, a Dr. from ~2000 years ago =/= expert by today's standards. To say 'he was a doctor!', really means nothing. "Dr's" (LOL) back then thought mental illness was demonic possession, and did things like blood letting. They had no concept of germs or where illness came from. The term 'doctor' should be used loosely, and might be better off being called 'mystic'.

Why? Because they had no idea of how the world worked.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 27, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> Ok, a Dr. from ~2000 years ago =/= expert by today's standards. To say 'he was a doctor!', really means nothing. "Dr's" (LOL) back then thought mental illness was demonic possession, and did things like blood letting. They had no concept of germs or where illness came from. The term 'doctor' should be used loosely, and might be better off being called *'mystic'.
> 
> Why? Because they had no idea of how the world worked.*


Could you explain? "How the world worked" and "mystic" and "had no idea" don't quite fit for me. It is likely that all of the advances we have were born of mystics and their 'crazy' imaginations.

*also, why is the scientific method the only 'acceptable' form of self-correcting systems?


----------



## randybishop (Feb 27, 2014)




----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 27, 2014)

So, I offer science and reason and you dismiss it. I offer proof from WITHIN the Bible and you still dismiss it. You know, back when I was working with the church there was one thing ahead of all others that bothered me and you are illustrating it very well. Most of the theology modern christians have does not come from scripture. You would think that if God sent a book down to earth for us to read and know him... you'd think Christians would at least know what was in it. Yet even when I list verses that are contrary to what you believe to be true you refuse to even listen to the BIBLE. Obviously, you don't want to hear anything that anyone has to say even if it comes from your God. 

Why don't you go start a fellowship church or whatever they are called. They don't require the preacher have any credentials and aren't affiliated with any conference or organization so there is no set theology or doctrine which means you can change it as you see fit or you can do like most of the preachers at those churches and just do feel good devotionals instead of a teaching doctrine or scripture.

And I've read the book several times all the way through (I believe I tried to establish credibility by mentioning that I studied for years in preparation for seminary), but that's not the way one should read it. You should begin with the three synoptic gospels and read them side by side.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 27, 2014)

NietzscheKeen said:


> So, I offer science and reason and you dismiss it. I offer proof from WITHIN the Bible and you still dismiss it.


Not sure who this was directed at but this caught my attention. You mention "proof" and "Bible" in once sentence and claim it as something you are offering. What is your proof and how did you come to that understanding?


----------



## Someacdude (Feb 27, 2014)

Im sorry i was trying to help you understand.

I can and will use the Bible to answer all of your questions. Sometimes people get offended or accuse a person of being a religious nut if they quoute so i was just trying to make sure we where on the same footing.
Scripture proves scripture. Let ,me get my work done, i also have a evolution thread i have to get back to, but i think it may be better to use the Bible instead of just trying to explain.
My apologies but most people involved in any kind of religion never study and even at church they rarely look things uo and honestly, the Bible isnt used there , just like you said. 




NietzscheKeen said:


> So, I offer science and reason and you dismiss it. I offer proof from WITHIN the Bible and you still dismiss it. You know, back when I was working with the church there was one thing ahead of all others that bothered me and you are illustrating it very well. Most of the theology modern christians have does not come from scripture. You would think that if God sent a book down to earth for us to read and know him... you'd think Christians would at least know what was in it. Yet even when I list verses that are contrary to what you believe to be true you refuse to even listen to the BIBLE. Obviously, you don't want to hear anything that anyone has to say even if it comes from your God.
> 
> Why don't you go start a fellowship church or whatever they are called. They don't require the preacher have any credentials and aren't affiliated with any conference or organization so there is no set theology or doctrine which means you can change it as you see fit or you can do like most of the preachers at those churches and just do feel good devotionals instead of a teaching doctrine or scripture.
> 
> And I've read the book several times all the way through (I believe I tried to establish credibility by mentioning that I studied for years in preparation for seminary), but that's not the way one should read it. You should begin with the three synoptic gospels and read them side by side.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 27, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> Could you explain? "How the world worked" and "mystic" and "had no idea" don't quite fit for me. It is likely that all of the advances we have were born of mystics and their 'crazy' imaginations.
> 
> *also, why is the scientific method the only 'acceptable' form of self-correcting systems?


"Likely all of the advances we have were born from mystics..."

We got our advances from the age of reason, and the scientific method. No amount of 'rain dances' are going to give us meteorology and climatology. No amount of exorcisms are going to give us a glimpse at mental health. 

People in the bible believed in necromancy, demons, evil spirits, witches, etc. 

They were, *incredibly *ignorant people.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 27, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Im sorry i was trying to help you understand.
> 
> I can and will use the Bible to answer all of your questions. Sometimes people get offended or accuse a person of being a religious nut if they quoute so i was just trying to make sure we where on the same footing.
> Scripture proves scripture. Let ,me get my work done, i also have a evolution thread i have to get back to, but i think it may be better to use the Bible instead of just trying to explain.
> My apologies but most people involved in any kind of religion never study and even at church they rarely look things uo and honestly, the Bible isnt used there , just like you said.


You can't use the bible to prove the bible, that's called a circular argument.

Person 1; The bible is the word of god.
Person 2; How do you know that?
Person 1; It says so in the bible.
Person 2; Why believe the bible?
Person 1; Because it's infallible.
Person 2; How do you know the bible is the infallible?
Person 1; Because the bible is the word of god.
Person 2; How do you know that?
Person 1; It says so in the bible.
Person 2; Why believe the bible?
Person 1; Because it's infallible.
Person 2; How do you know the bible is the infallible?
Person 1; Because the bible is the word of god.
Person 2; How do you know that?
Person 1; It says so in the bible.
Person 2; Why believe the bible?
Person 1; Because it's infallible.
Person 2; How do you know the bible is the infallible?
Person 1; Because the bible is the word of god.
Person 2; How do you know that?
Person 1; It says so in the bible.
Person 2; Why believe the bible?
Person 1; Because it's infallible.
Person 2; How do you know the bible is the infallible?
Person 1; Because the bible is the word of god.
Person 2; How do you know that?
Person 1; It says so in the bible.
Person 2; Why believe the bible?
Person 1; Because it's infallible.
Person 2; How do you know the bible is the infallible?
Person 1; Because the bible is the word of god.
Person 2; How do you know that?
Person 1; It says so in the bible.
Person 2; Why believe the bible?
Person 1; Because it's infallible.
Person 2; How do you know the bible is the infallible?
Person 1; Because the bible is the word of god.
Person 2; How do you know that?
Person 1; It says so in the bible.
Person 2; Why believe the bible?
Person 1; Because it's infallible.
Person 2; How do you know the bible is the infallible?
Person 1; Because the bible is the word of god.


Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever....


LOGIC FAIL.


----------



## tyler.durden (Feb 27, 2014)

Skuxx said:


> Most of the similarities between the horus/jesus stories have been debunked. There are similarities though don't get me wrong.





Someacdude said:


> Horus & Osiris a proven myth , one that even many scholars dont put faith in quote , Scholars have tried to discern the exact nature of the events that gave rise to the story, but they have reached no definitive conclusions. Parts of the myth appear in a wide variety of Egyptian texts, from funerary texts and magical spells to short stories. The story is, therefore, more detailed and more cohesive than any other ancient Egyptian myth. Yet no Egyptian source gives a full account of the myth, and the sources vary widely in their versions of events. Greek and Roman writings, particularly _De Iside et Osiride_ by Plutarch, provide more information but may not always accurately reflect Egyptian beliefs. Through these writings, the Osiris myth persisted after knowledge of most ancient Egyptian beliefs was lost, and it is still well known today.


Thank you, gentlemen, for correcting me on this issue! I've done some research and see that I have jumped the gun on believing this one. Although there are some similarities, it is by no means a blow by blow retelling as I stated. That's what I get for believing everything I saw in Religulous  I apparently took Gerald Massey's view without proper research, and no experts seemed to take this guy seriously. I am a little relieved to learn this, and has restored a little of my faith in humanity. For, if Massey were correct about all the similarities, christians would be much bigger fools in my mind. Thanks again for the correction, and carry on with your interesting discussion...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 27, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> "Likely all of the advances we have were born from mystics..."
> 
> We got our advances from the age of reason, and the scientific method. No amount of 'rain dances' are going to give us meteorology and climatology. No amount of exorcisms are going to give us a glimpse at mental health.
> 
> ...


So what is an actual rain dance? What psychological effects does a medicine man or woman gain from whirling about in ecstasy? Before meteorology and climatology there were people dancing for rain. That evolved into a demonstrable method but it was born in the minds and 'superstitions' of past cultures.

Why would someone like Einstein or Jung say that the most elegant is the most simple? How many discoveries that actually benefited people were accidental discoveries? Well, I have a job to do now. Gotta research how many discoveries were accidental and how many were tasked!

*incredibly ignorant people still made discoveries otherwise evolution would be nulled. Sht, something from something


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Feb 27, 2014)

I believed it too because some reputable people repeated it as well. I guess that's the fallacy behind the argument from authority.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 27, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> So what is an actual rain dance?


A 'rain dance' is a dance performed by Native Americans in an effort to convince the spirits to make it rain. 



> What psychological effects does a medicine man or woman gain from whirling about in ecstasy?


That is irrelevant. The *only *thing that matters in this case, is if the action of doing the dance causes the rain. Which it does not. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.



> Before meteorology and climatology there were people dancing for rain. That evolved into a demonstrable method but it was born in the minds and 'superstitions' of past cultures.


I don't agree, at all. Mysticism didn't evolve into science. They are virtually diametrically opposed.



> Why would someone like Einstein or Jung say that the most elegant is the most simple? How many discoveries that actually benefited people were accidental discoveries? Well, I have a job to do now. Gotta research how many discoveries were accidental and how many were tasked!
> 
> *incredibly ignorant people still made discoveries otherwise evolution would be nulled. Sht, something from something


I'm not saying accidental discoveries don't benefit people or that people who were 'mystics' didn't, by chance, make some discoveries. I'm saying that mystic activities don't have a direct path to those discoveries.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 27, 2014)

woo woo

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


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 27, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> woo woo
> 
> .............



woo woo

 lol


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 27, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> woo woo
> 
> lol


Haha, sweet


----------



## midgetaus (Feb 28, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> So what is an actual rain dance? What psychological effects does a medicine man or woman gain from whirling about in ecstasy? Before meteorology and climatology there were people dancing for rain. That evolved into a demonstrable method but it was born in the minds and 'superstitions' of past cultures.
> 
> Why would someone like Einstein or Jung say that the most elegant is the most simple? How many discoveries that actually benefited people were accidental discoveries? Well, I have a job to do now. Gotta research how many discoveries were accidental and how many were tasked!
> 
> **incredibly ignorant people still made discoveries otherwise evolution would be nulled.* Sht, something from something


Evolution has nothing to do with "discoveries" and therefore would continue at its rate of necessity...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Feb 28, 2014)




----------



## Nevaeh420 (Feb 28, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


>


That seems accurate:

But I would imagine the notion of a Higher Power and a Savior, is ubiquitous throughout all the cosmos.

The aliens might believe in a Higher Power too (if they are "spiritual" and anything like humans). The aliens may even have their own Savior or Messiah, if they are anything like humans and are "spiritual".

The concept of a Higher Power and a Savior could be a ubiquitous notion throughout all of the different alien races; a Leader that has higher powers that the aliens "admire".

Its possible and maybe probable.

~PEACE~


----------



## midgetaus (Feb 28, 2014)

Nevaeh420 said:


> That seems accurate:
> 
> But I would imagine the notion of a Higher Power and a Savior, is ubiquitous throughout all the cosmos.
> 
> ...


so many oxymorons in this post.... not just the author


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Feb 28, 2014)

midgetaus said:


> so many oxymorons in this post.... not just the author


Please point out all the oxymorons in My last post.

Are you saying that aliens arent spiritual or have a Higher Power?

EDIT- Why do YOU think Im an oxymoron?

~PEACE~


----------



## eye exaggerate (Feb 28, 2014)

midgetaus said:


> Evolution has nothing to do with "discoveries" and therefore would continue at its rate of necessity...


If people weren't around to evolve along with the bigger picture what would be the point of human evolution?


----------



## midgetaus (Mar 1, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> If people weren't around to evolve along with the bigger picture what would be the point of human evolution?


**incredibly ignorant people still made discoveries otherwise evolution would be nulled*

This was the comment I was referring to... so we can summise that evolution would be stagnant without discoveries even by the most very ignorant people on earth........Evoltion would continue without these "discoveries"..

Im not sure how I could put it any more simply for you... "Discoveries" and "evolution"are not mutually exclusive 


What you mean by the bigger picture I have no idea.. if you are some how referring to religion being the bigger picture this conversation will cease to "evolve"...


----------



## kpmarine (Mar 1, 2014)

NietzscheKeen said:


> I believed it too because some reputable people repeated it as well. I guess that's the fallacy behind the argument from authority.


Was this the same authority that told you that whites were superior? You don't get a free pass fo that shit. Anyone can fuck up, but one who doesn't acknowledge it is a shitbag.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 1, 2014)

midgetaus said:


> **incredibly ignorant people still made discoveries otherwise evolution would be nulled*
> 
> This was the comment I was referring to... so we can summise that evolution would be stagnant without discoveries even by the most very ignorant people on earth........Evoltion would continue without these "discoveries"..
> 
> ...


My word...

Man is the agent of change for the evolution of man. Man will either adapt or not.

Did a fckn squirrel discover electricity?


----------



## midgetaus (Mar 1, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> My word...
> 
> Man is the agent of change for the evolution of man. Man will either adapt or not.
> 
> Did a fckn squirrel discover electricity?




You equate the discovery of electricity to evolution?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 1, 2014)

midgetaus said:


> You equate the discovery of electricity to evolution?


Sure.

I'm reminded of this mime who once said


----------



## Heisenberg (Mar 1, 2014)

tyler.durden said:


> Thank you, gentlemen, for correcting me on this issue! I've done some research and see that I have jumped the gun on believing this one. Although there are some similarities, it is by no means a blow by blow retelling as I stated. That's what I get for believing everything I saw in Religulous  I apparently took Gerald Massey's view without proper research, and no experts seemed to take this guy seriously. I am a little relieved to learn this, and has restored a little of my faith in humanity. For, if Massey were correct about all the similarities, christians would be much bigger fools in my mind. Thanks again for the correction, and carry on with your interesting discussion...



The notion was popularized by the zeitgeist propaganda film. Unfortunately it worked its way into the atheist pop-mentality and is repeated daily, on all social media sites. 

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

Unfortunately, when it comes to ideologies that Mr Maher agrees with, he tends to turn of his critical faculties. He is a germ theory denier, an anti-vaxxer, GMO truther, and sits on the board of PETA. IOW, he is critical of right-wing pseudoscience, but credulous of left-wing pseudoscience. Sad, considering he has some insightful things to say about religion.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/27/bill-maher-and-anti-science/


----------



## midgetaus (Mar 1, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> Sure.
> 
> I'm reminded of this mime who once said


Was this mime an influential figure in your education as well...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 1, 2014)

midgetaus said:


> Was this mime an influential figure in your education as well...


?, ?

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


----------



## Someacdude (Mar 1, 2014)

That is a fact, except for one thing.
The Bible doesnt say if there is life on other planets, what it does say is this is the only place the issue of universal sovereignty will be questioned.

I still dont have time right now to devote to this, wife is very sick and needs an emergency operation. 

Not for nothing, who made all of this? Set the sun the perfect distance away from the earth, caused it perfect rotation and set the moon in its place.
Science wants to blind some to the existence of ANY creator and tries to claim it as their own, not understanding the simplest things. How many times has science been wrong?

If people would look up from their iphone for a few minutes and just look at creation they may develop a sense of awe at what science cant explain, not to mention ,,,,do





Beefbisquit said:


>


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 1, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> I still dont have time right now to devote to this, wife is very sick and needs an emergency operation.


Good luck to you and your wife. I hope this turns out well.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 1, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> That is a fact, except for one thing.
> The Bible doesnt say if there is life on other planets, what it does say is this is the only place the issue of universal sovereignty will be questioned.


lol.... woo woo.



> I still dont have time right now to devote to this, wife is very sick and needs an emergency operation.


I am very sorry to hear that.



> Not for nothing, who made all of this?


That's a loaded question. There doesn't need to be a creator, and assuming there *is* when there's been no evidence to support the hypothesis is a poor line of reasoning and less likely than one that doesn't make that assumption. (See occam's razor)


> Set the sun the perfect distance away from the earth, caused it perfect rotation and set the moon in its place.
> Science wants to blind some to the existence of ANY creator and tries to claim it as their own, not understanding the simplest things.


More loaded questions. Besides, there are billions if not trillions of planets in the so called 'Goldilocks' zone. We are not unique. You are proposing a 'god of the gaps' argument, and if you want to equate 'god' to 'what science can't explain', then god will just become an ever shrinking idea, that will eventually disappear altogether. 



> How many times has science been wrong?


*Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; *a logical fallacy. 

First off, 'science' is self correcting. Second, 'science' doesn't make assumptions without evidence like religion does, sometimes scientists do make mistakes though (see the first point about being self-correcting). 'Science' is the best known method for determining what is real and what is not. All of this adds up to science being the best tool we have for examining the world, not religion. 



> If people would look up from their iphone for a few minutes and just look at creation they may develop a sense of awe at what science cant explain, not to mention ,,,,do


How can you possibly prove that the universe was created by a god? lol It's not possible. The best we can know at present time, is that the was a singularity of some kind and then everything was really hot, and started expanding about 14 billion years ago. You just love the 'god of the gaps' argument to fall back onto, don't you? lol


----------



## Someacdude (Mar 25, 2014)

Wife is much better, thanks for the thoughts.
As far as there being no creator, whats your explanation? 
For many science is their God, it absolves them from any moral or ethical restrictions except those imposed by mans law which we all know is,,,,flawed.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 25, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Wife is much better, thanks for the thoughts.
> As far as there being no creator, whats your explanation?
> For many science is their God, it absolves them from any moral or ethical restrictions except those imposed by mans law which we all know is,,,,flawed.


I don't think existence requires a creator, if it did, what created that creator?

If someone is good because they believe they'll be punished if they're not, they're not a good person. If a person is good because they know being good is the right thing to do, they are a good person


----------



## Heisenberg (Mar 26, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> For many science is their God, it absolves them from any moral or ethical restrictions except those imposed by mans law which we all know is,,,,flawed.



Examples? Who are these nameless many you are referring to? It sounds like you have simply come up with a narrative that fits your worldview. You are using "god" in a different context, unless you think scientists see "science" as some holy entity worthy of worship. Since no scientist has ever suggested a deity is at the heart of science, I guess you switched context without noticing yourself. No matter what scientist think of science, they do not see it as a god in the same sense that Christians have a god, and your suggesting it reveals either disingenuousness or thoughtlessness.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 26, 2014)

Heisenberg said:


> Examples? Who are these nameless many you are referring to? It sounds like you have simply come up with a narrative that fits your worldview. You are using "god" in a different context, unless you think scientists see "science" as some holy entity worthy of worship. Since no scientist has ever suggested a deity is at the heart of science, I guess you switched context without noticing yourself. No matter what scientist think of science, they do not see it as a god in the same sense that Christians have a god, and your suggesting it reveals either disingenuousness or thoughtlessness.


Did you see that part of Cosmos wherein Tyson describes our connectedness to everything as spiritual? How would you describe his take on that?


----------



## Heisenberg (Mar 26, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> Did you see that part of Cosmos wherein Tyson describes our connectedness to everything as spiritual? How would you describe his take on that?


I have not watched it yet. I'm sure I will eventually, but right now the hype has turned me off.

I think spiritual is a word that means something different to everyone, and indeed no one can seem to offer an objective definition. I think God, especially the one defined by Christianity, is very specific.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 26, 2014)

Heisenberg said:


> I have not watched it yet. I'm sure I will eventually, but right now the hype has turned me off.
> 
> I think spiritual is a word that means something different to everyone, and indeed no one can seem to offer an objective definition. I think God, especially the one defined by Christianity, is very specific.


To some, perhaps, the 'Christian' God is very specific.

I'm with you on the hype, I stay away from the swarms of cool people and their ways 

I watched some of it because the visuals caught my attention. I have to give it credit for being stunning in that way.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 26, 2014)

And this

...........


----------



## robert 14617 (Mar 26, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> And this
> 
> ...........


i know gods in my bedroom , just before i drop a load other wise i wouldn't be yelling out his name over and over


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 26, 2014)

robert 14617 said:


> i know gods in my bedroom , just before i drop a load other wise i wouldn't be yelling out his name over and over


Information age, yes. This information, not so much


----------



## Someacdude (Mar 26, 2014)

Heisenberg said:


> Examples? Who are these nameless many you are referring to? It sounds like you have simply come up with a narrative that fits your worldview. You are using "god" in a different context, unless you think scientists see "science" as some holy entity worthy of worship. Since no scientist has ever suggested a deity is at the heart of science, I guess you switched context without noticing yourself. No matter what scientist think of science, they do not see it as a god in the same sense that Christians have a god, and your suggesting it reveals either disingenuousness or thoughtlessness.


Nope just trying to steer the discussion away from things just like this.
So, if there is no God, how did we get here, what holds everything in place, who made the laws of physics , how did all of this get here, short answer please.
See , even scientists cant prove their isnt a creator and more every year are actually saying they cant imagine how life began. 
These arent quacks, these are noted leaders in their fields , so where did all this come from, why are we here, cosmic joke? Mistake?


----------



## joefoxx (Mar 26, 2014)

i think it's interesting to note the connection between the origins of science and spirituality. Even at the time of the early catholic church a bulk of scientific pursuit was invested in proving the existence of a "God". Only after the scientific thought began to mature and diverge questioning the authority of the church/kingdom, which was most interested in preservation of power, were they disowned and persecuted as heretics. It wouldn't be a far fetched idea to assume that's where science as an institution sought to actively oppose religion as it is.
Religions that were around long before Christianity believed in spirituality as containing both the seen, and therefore provable, and the unseen nature of consciousness. In truth it seems as if these two, science and religion, were originally one and then separated as the church decided to divorce authority over people's beliefs from any sort of of good sense or reason..

I mention this because i find it most interesting that centuries of scientific discovery and evolution, about a gabillion dollars, and even more Christian jokes than i can count later the top fields and minds in science have discovered that all known material is made of "the Force" and what's more 90% of existence is made of something we know is there but we can't see or touch. I mean, I missing something or did George Lucas figure this out 20 years ago and without an actual particle accelerator. I've read the same thing in ancient gnostic, buddhist etc writings. I try not to subscribe to any particular label, but it seems like science is dangerously close to confirming the very thing it has assured us over and over did not exist.


----------



## joefoxx (Mar 26, 2014)

To me science and religion, religion being record of popular spirituality, are two points of the "strange loop" or "tangled hierarchy" of the mind. This would partly explain why neither fully explains things but taken together they can provide a much clearer picture of the history and existence of humanity and even the nature of matter as a whole. Science misses the whole because, by its very nature, it only acknowledges the predictable and therefore provable and mostly ignores the abstract. Thst's why science will never explain the evolution of mind which ironically includes the very thing that makes most scientific advancement possible; imagination. 
Religion on the other hand disregards most logical reasoning or provable fact but, taken in context, is an excellent record of the evolution of human psychology. 

I could go on and on


----------



## Nevaeh420 (Mar 26, 2014)

joefoxx said:


> I try not to subscribe to any particular label, but it seems like science is dangerously close to confirming the very thing it has assured us over and over did not exist.


What do you think science is going to confirm?

God? or a Higher Power? What?

~PEACE~


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 26, 2014)

joefoxx said:


> To me science and religion, religion being record of popular spirituality, are two points of the "strange loop" or "tangled hierarchy" of the mind. This would partly explain why neither fully explains things but taken together they can provide a much clearer picture of the history and existence of humanity and even the nature of matter as a whole. Science misses the whole because, by its very nature, it only acknowledges the predictable and therefore provable and mostly ignores the abstract. Thst's why science will never explain the evolution of mind which ironically includes the very thing that makes most scientific advancement possible; imagination.
> Religion on the other hand disregards most logical reasoning or provable fact but, taken in context, is an excellent record of the evolution of human psychology.
> 
> I could go on and on


That's just the issue, thanks for bringing this up. Human psychology is at the heart of religion and spirituality. Since consciousness and psyche are (obviously) interrelated, giving it a quality or quantity is like a fish describing the water it is swimming in. I think it was Einstein that said something of that nature, and I agree with that idea. He, as far as I know, was a panentheist.


----------



## Heisenberg (Mar 26, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Nope just trying to steer the discussion away from things just like this.
> So, if there is no God, how did we get here, what holds everything in place, who made the laws of physics , how did all of this get here, short answer please.


My answer is very short: I don't know. The answer you seem to be suggesting is, "I don't know, therefore God."




> See , even scientists cant prove their isnt a creator and more every year are actually saying they cant imagine how life began.
> These arent quacks, these are noted leaders in their fields , so where did all this come from, why are we here, cosmic joke? Mistake?


Even scientists? Science does not try to prove existential negatives. I'm afraid you'll need to give examples to demonstrate your assertion that scientists are saying they can't imagine how life began. Who are these people and how did they get to be leaders in science without being aware of the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity?



> *The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
> 
> The general form of the argument is as follows.
> *
> ...


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity


----------



## joefoxx (Mar 26, 2014)

Nevaeh420 said:


> What do you think science is going to confirm?
> 
> God? or a Higher Power? What?
> 
> ~PEACE~



An intelligent order preeminent to the material universe? Downward causation? "some" mind over all matter? 

Just yesterday science KNEW the universe was essentially particulate material permeated by the 4 preeminent forces. Now we have "quantum everything" which has to have a few general relativists feeling about as educated as children. To me, when something like that is emphatically disproven there's literally not much left to stand on. Now we KNOW there has to be some much deeper and more complex system underlying the universe. And it's almost a free for all. Are there particles or strings or forces? Should we call them quarks or midichlorians or angels? Who says heaven and hell can't be somewhere out in that 95% of non baryonic matter?(personally I think all that God, Angel, Devil jazz is a lot of personification) Who says we're not just some marble on an alien's board game? 

At the most, material science is close to confirming that the existence of the universe is not chance. 

At the least, material science has confirmed that, when it comes to the explanation of "all things", it is just as unreliable as religion, though not nearly as stubborn, stupid, or stuck in its ways.

I try not to get to deep into physics, or any one discipline, because i think it detracts and distracts from the bigger question of our existence, which for the "human" constitutes both our material and abstract components. 

We tend to forget one very small detail when we observe the universe; the observer. If perception is relative then mustn't the observer itself become a part of the explanation? The objective perspective exclusive to human consciousness is probably the single biggest factor in the search for truth(science or religion). The origin of mind has been written off by mainstream science long ago as a construct of the brain(upward causation), and ignored by most mainstream religion in favor of it's ability to facilitate physical control(downward causation). To me this is why they both fail at expressing the whole. The explanations of Darwinian evolution, and traditional mechanics both stop where the mind starts. This makes sense because mind and self awareness are prerequisite for question/explanation itself, or any need thereof. 

Once again, just as in material science, the quantum explanation as opposed to the traditional one has opened a whole new field of possibilities.


----------



## joefoxx (Mar 26, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> That's just the issue, thanks for bringing this up. Human psychology is at the heart of religion and spirituality. Since consciousness and psyche are (obviously) interrelated, giving it a quality or quantity is like a fish describing the water it is swimming in. I think it was Einstein that said something of that nature, and I agree with that idea. He, as far as I know, was a panentheist.



exactly. it is the eye seeing itself.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 26, 2014)

joefoxx said:


> exactly. it is the eye seeing itself.


That's half freaky


----------



## Someacdude (Mar 27, 2014)

The big bang theory is a bust, many scientists dont even believe that one anymore. So how did al of this get here, what set the ballances ?
I refuse to believe that the earth made with the ability to heal itself , with tides the distance from the sun, the exact speed and rotation to sustain life all happened by accident.

In the first book of the Bible after the creative day [ which where 1000 years each byt) The very first lie was told.
Satan told Eve that the reason God didnt want her to eat from the tree of life was because God knew if she did, that she would be like Gid, knowing good from bad.

People still believe this original lie, they still believe that they dont need God, that he has no right to tell them how to live their life.

Turn on the news , as the Bible says, Man has dominated man to his injury.

Life is much to hard, much to short and much to painful to be the way it is on purpose, even if there is no creator, man has had thousands of years to make things right.
All the great thinkers didnt make a dent and all our present day society has produced is more entertainment and much like Rome is in a state of decay. 

Somethings coming , and there will be no doubt when it does, btw, the bible doesnt preach a rapture either, what it does say is that every eye will know that it is God intervening.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 27, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> The big bang theory is a bust, many scientists dont even believe that one anymore.


Actually, they just found *even more evidence in support of the big bang recently. *Not sure where you get your info from but it's not from scientists. 



> So how did al of this get here, what set the ballances?
> I refuse to believe that the earth made with the ability to heal itself , with tides the distance from the sun, the exact speed and rotation to sustain life all happened by accident.


The 'goldilocks zone' eh? We've found a lot of other plants in 'goldilocks zones' around other stars, it's not that uncommon. Also, if it takes 'god' to put a planet in that zone, then god put a bunch of planets in a bunch of those zones all over the galaxy. I wonder what alien Jesus looks like... lol



> In the first book of the Bible after the creative day [ which where 1000 years each byt) The very first lie was told.
> Satan told Eve that the reason God didnt want her to eat from the tree of life was because God knew if she did, that she would be like Gid, knowing good from bad.
> 
> People still believe this original lie, they still believe that they dont need God, that he has no right to tell them how to live their life.


'Need' god? I see no evidence that god even exists in any way more than in peoples minds. How could you possibly know each day was 1000 years? There is no consensus on the passage of time in the bible. 



> Turn on the news , as the Bible says, Man has dominated man to his injury.
> 
> Life is much to hard, much to short and much to painful to be the way it is on purpose, even if there is no creator, man has had thousands of years to make things right.
> All the great thinkers didnt make a dent and all our present day society has produced is more entertainment and much like Rome is in a state of decay.
> ...


People have been preaching rapture for as long as the bible has existed.


----------



## Someacdude (Mar 28, 2014)

Beef, you do realze that simply saying something doesnt make it a fact right, i men seriously , was everything i said wrong even the questions?
You HATE religion , i get it, we all get it, but please stop saying things we both know arent true simply because you have an issue with religion and cant see the difference between the Bible and religion.
The way you think is so one track like whoever it was that quoted the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN nonsense See, the bible was very clear about the signs of true Christians, it gave an accurate description in the Bible.

Seriously, there is more evidence that the big bang happened, are you serious ? See thats where i knew you where not her to have a conversation only to show exactly what your agenda is so,,,in that case,,,whats the difference between you and those people who profess to be Christians yet only care about their own agenda?


----------



## joefoxx (Mar 28, 2014)

The problem is that most people assume the nature of truth to be dualistic meaning there must always be truthVSfalsehood, a right answer/wrong answer, a winner and a loser. Either science must be absolutely correct or else religion must be. . 

The death of philosophy in mainstream science is tragic because philosophy is allowed to incorporate and analyze the info from both sides and many other disciplines and then process the stats through the old "logic" or "valid reasoning" engine. This is why, I believe, a healthy interest in philosophy( or at the least correct reasoning), should be the most essential and fundamental science. Because philosophy owes allegiance to the original existential question and Because in our search for answers we are often found lost to that original question.... For example, to argue for science as an absolute path to truth is to deny valid reasoning since we know that the immaterial does exist( the fact that the universe is made up of something other than matter is self-evident) not only in our minds but manifested into reality through our works. So in the largest context an "absolute material" argument is 50% fallacy.. I'm sure you can guess who holds down the other 50%. This should be the obvious end to any science vs religion debate but it remains the song that doesn't end. 

Philosophy employs a dynamic set of principles that almost every human being can agree on. It should foster a language common to all humanity. Instead this language is falsified through separate, bias cultures with both religious and governmental influences superimposing their own set of self serving values or dualistic choices in it's place. Obviously, in most early cultures there was just one particular hard fast set of values, and this is the closest I can get to a literal explanation of the babel story:

Since language systems are basically different systems of symbology for the same things we can easily reason that confused languages alone would not slow down any progress of human advancement much. "Tongues" probably referred more to "culture" which comprises what we personally believe to be ultimately good and bad and the way we carry out those beliefs. Differing(confused) cultures would and have constituted a significant opposition to the evolution of humanity as a whole as the famous "confusing of tongues" was said to have had...


----------



## joefoxx (Mar 28, 2014)

Tangentially, on the subject of the bible, I could speculate that the advent of "logic and reasoning" roughly correlates to the "eating from the tree of good and evil" and, as a bit of a stretch, the "restriction from the tree of life" represents the realization/idea(and eventual fear) of ever impending (physical)death, a trait seemingly exclusive to humanity. Cultural tradition/religion/government would be the cherubs in front of the doors keeping everyone away(distracted) from their own personal sense of logic and reasoning. 

In this way, we can interpret most of Genesis within the context of some gnostic monks describing a psychotic episode experienced by the first monkey man without attempting to disprove the validity of either science or religion. On the contrary, our goal would be to search out the commonality between them for the most logically reasonable explanation. We could do the same with all other fantastical elements of the bible(my personal favorite is Superman Vs Jesusman) and probably all come to a greater understanding of the truth together. Instead we babble on in the stagnant pond of redundancy, arguing extraneous details from different perspective lily pads, while highly logical people with the emotional range of teaspoons set the parameters of our belief structure. 


Studying the bible in the context of "all things considered", I would say it and most creation stories can be more easily understood as describing the birth of human consciousness as opposed to the first physical man and the rest to be a perspective history on the evolution of the human condition(psychology and philosophy). This would allow agreement with both ideologies so it would stand, for me, to reason the most correct theory....


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 28, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Beef, you do realze that simply saying something doesnt make it a fact right, i men seriously , was everything i said wrong even the questions?


You clearly stated *'the big bang theory is a bust'*. If you didn't intend for people to take that statement as literal, why make it? Were you trying to be deceptive?



> You HATE religion , i get it, we all get it, but please stop saying things we both know arent true simply because you have an issue with religion and cant see the difference between the Bible and religion.


I don't 'hate' religion, I do think it's harmful and you seem to be demonstrating my point with scientific ignorance. Scientists proposed a theory about the big bang, and started looking for the evidence they proposed _should_ be there, and *lo and behold,* they found it exactly how they thought they would. A new, more recent study has only strengthened this hypothesis. So, why you say 'the big bang theory is a bust', is beyond me. You're either out of the loop, don't understand the science behind it, or are ignorant. 




> The way you think is so one track like whoever it was that quoted the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN nonsense See, the bible was very clear about the signs of true Christians, it gave an accurate description in the Bible


I have *NEVER* seen a christian act Christ-like. The 'no true Scotsman fallacy' is one of the many fallacious arguments used by 'the faithful' to attempt to (poorly) rationalize their beliefs. It goes along with the 'god of the gaps' argument, and argument from incredulity. 



> Seriously, there is more evidence that the big bang happened, are you serious ?


I am very serious. So are the astrophysicists that study this stuff...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cosmic-inflation-evidence-of-post-big-bang-expansion-discovered-1.2575998

http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4036287.ece

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/physics-cosmic-inflation-031714.html

Very serious.



> See thats where i knew you where not her to have a conversation only to show exactly what your agenda is so,,,in that case,,,whats the difference between you and those people who profess to be Christians yet only care about their own agenda?


When you start by slandering a genuine scientific discovery as a 'bust', and you offer zero reasoning as to *why *it's a bust or how you can possibly refute their claims; *you're not informed enough to actually have a meaningful discussion* *about the topic at hand.
*
I do have an agenda, it's called ending scientific illiteracy and ignorance.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 28, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> Seriously, there is more evidence that the big bang happened, are you serious ?


Redshift and cosmic background radiation are evidence of the big bang. What evidence is there to support any organized religion outside of their religious texts?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 28, 2014)

joefoxx said:


> The problem is that most people assume the nature of truth to be dualistic meaning there must always be truthVSfalsehood, a right answer/wrong answer, a winner and a loser. Either science must be absolutely correct or else religion must be. .
> 
> The death of philosophy in mainstream science is tragic because philosophy is allowed to incorporate and analyze the info from both sides and many other disciplines and then process the stats through the old "logic" or "valid reasoning" engine. This is why, I believe, a healthy interest in philosophy( or at the least correct reasoning), should be the most essential and fundamental science. Because philosophy owes allegiance to the original existential question and Because in our search for answers we are often found lost to that original question.... For example, to argue for science as an absolute path to truth is to deny valid reasoning since we know that the immaterial does exist( the fact that the universe is made up of something other than matter is self-evident) not only in our minds but manifested into reality through our works. So in the largest context an "absolute material" argument is 50% fallacy.. I'm sure you can guess who holds down the other 50%. This should be the obvious end to any science vs religion debate but it remains the song that doesn't end.
> 
> ...










That is all


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 28, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Redshift and cosmic background radiation are evidence of the big bang. What evidence is there to support any organized religion outside of their religious texts?


Could you describe Redshift for us?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 28, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> Could you describe Redshift for us?


Redshift is to light waves what the Doppler effect is to sound waves

When a light emitting object like a galaxy moves away from an observer, the wavelength of light increases making it appear closer to the red end of the light spectrum. Every galaxy in the universe is shifting to the red because the universe is expanding, using that information it can be deduced that if you turn the time far enough back, every galaxy in the universe was at the same single point in space at some point in time in the distant past


----------



## Heisenberg (Mar 29, 2014)

Someacdude said:


> The big bang theory is a bust, many scientists dont even believe that one anymore.


 You are not going to be able to make assertions such as this without being called on them. Please provide evidence that scientists are abandoning the big bang theory, and then list the reasons why. When you are finished, I will then point out that you are simply seeking to create a gap in which you can insert your creation delusions. IOW, your burden is not to disprove the big bang, but to prove creationism. You have already demonstrated that you are happy to let lack of imagination fuel your beliefs and, apparently, you think it should fuel ours as well. I am open to evidence of creationism, but the only thing you have shown us is the different ways in which your brain has chosen to fool itself.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 29, 2014)

[video=youtube;PCxOEyyzmvQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCxOEyyzmvQ&amp;list=UUHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA[/video]


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 29, 2014)

Thought this was pertinent to the discussion; (and funny)


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

GOD HERE said:


> No actually, you're not the only nut job with a messianic complex on here as of a few days ago. I saw another but I can't remember his name off the top of my head.


 Jesus???????????


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> It isn't possible for me to understand how you can possibly believe what you believe... I mean, I believed some crazy shit when I was younger, but Christianity seems so blatantly incorrect to me. There's so many contradictions, and things that don't make sense. There's virtually zero evidence to support any of it, and Christians treat it like it's completely factual, and as if everyone should act the same way as they do. If you want to believe in Christ, or Santa, or demons, or the loch ness smonster for all I care, *go to town*, bud. But leave me out of your 'crazy', and for fuck sakes, don't try to make any laws based on your beliefs to make other people conform to the insanity.


 But aren't all laws traceable to religion?


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> Unless you're a hippy, that gives all worldly possessions away, and follows all the rules of the O.T., you're not a real Christian. Jesus didn't appear to change the laws of the old testament (John 14:15), Jesus appeared as a sword of his father to kill and vanquish non-Christians/blasphemers. (Matthew 10:34) If you actually read the bible, there aren't any real Christians because we would throw them all in jail for killing anyone wearing a cotton blend t-shirt or for working on the sabbath.... that is *real* Christianity. Straight from the bible.


 So who did Jesus kill? You clearly know nothing about Jesus.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

eye exaggerate said:


> My word... Man is the agent of change for the evolution of man. Man will either adapt or not. Did a fckn squirrel discover electricity?


 I saw a squirrel jump (or attempt to, anyway) from one pole of a transformer to another. HE discovered electricity.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> How can you possibly prove that the universe was created by a god? lol It's not possible. The best we can know at present time, is that the was a singularity of some kind and then everything was really hot, and started expanding about 14 billion years ago. You just love the 'god of the gaps' argument to fall back onto, don't you? lol


 Is the "big bang" theory really any different than creationism?


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I don't think existence requires a creator, if it did, what created that creator? If someone is good because they believe they'll be punished if they're not, they're not a good person. If a person is good because they know being good is the right thing to do, they are a good person


 If "Good" is the "right" thing to do, who decides what is good or right? Not the subject, as his notion of good or right can be anything. For many, good and right is what benefits themselves. Look how slavery was considered good and right for thousands of years.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> The 'goldilocks zone' eh? We've found a lot of other plants in 'goldilocks zones' around other stars, it's not that uncommon


 We haven't found "a lot of other plants", let alone "in 'goldilocks zones' around other stars". The FEW planets we have observed were gas giants, not inhabitable at all.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Redshift is to light waves what the Doppler effect is to sound waves When a light emitting object like a galaxy moves away from an observer, the wavelength of light increases making it appear closer to the red end of the light spectrum. Every galaxy in the universe is shifting to the red because the universe is expanding, using that information it can be deduced that if you turn the time far enough back, every galaxy in the universe was at the same single point in space at some point in time in the distant past


 So if I head east to get to the beach and you head west to get to the beach, we both started from the same point? If your "logic" comes to a ridiculous conclusion (everything in the universe can fit inside a point with a volume of zero), your logic is faulty.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Is the "big bang" theory really any different than creationism?


The big bang theory is totally different from creationism. Creationism (intelligent design) takes a top down approach of creation, that man and all the other animals were created by God in their current form. The big bang theory states that all matter in the universe expanded from a single point in the distant past. One idea is used to explain the origins of man based on a biblical world view, the other is used to explain the origins of the universe using the scientific method. One idea doesn't have any supporting evidence outside it's own religious teachings, the other has decades of scientific research and a few nobel prizes.



Red1966 said:


> If "Good" is the "right" thing to do, who decides what is good or right? Not the subject, as his notion of good or right can be anything. For many, good and right is what benefits themselves. Look how slavery was considered good and right for thousands of years.


How do you know that it's wrong to steal from someone?



Red1966 said:


> We haven't found "a lot of other plants", let alone "in 'goldilocks zones' around other stars". The FEW planets we have observed were gas giants, not inhabitable at all.


"Data from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog (HEC) suggests that, of the 859 exoplanets which have been confirmed as of 3 January 2013, nine potentially habitable planets have been found, and the same source predicts that there may be 30 habitable extrasolar moons around confirmed planets. The HEC also states that of the 15,874 transit threshold crossing events (TCE) which have recurred more than three times (thus making them more likely to be actual planets), discovered by the Kepler probe up until 3 January 2013, that 262 planets (1.65%) have the potential to be habitable, with an additional 35 "warm jovian" planets which may have habitable natural satellites."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Potentially_habitable_planets



Red1966 said:


> So if I head east to get to the beach and you head west to get to the beach, we both started from the same point? If your "logic" comes to a ridiculous conclusion (everything in the universe can fit inside a point with a volume of zero), your logic is faulty.


You've misunderstood the explanation, your beach analogy doesn't work or make sense in this context. As the universe expands and galaxies move away from the Earth, the effect creates the redshift we observe. Just like if 5 people are standing around you with a candle and start walking outward, not only are they themselves moving, but the space between you and them is actually growing, that's why the force of the expansion is increasing, increasing the wavelength of the light they're emitting.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> But aren't all laws traceable to religion?





Red1966 said:


> So who did Jesus kill? You clearly know nothing about Jesus.


I didn't say Jesus killed anyone, I said it was written in the bible (in the same book condemning homosexuality) that wearing a cotton blend shirt, along with myriad other things, is punishable by death, 



Red1966 said:


> Is the "big bang" theory really any different than creationism?


Yes. One is based on actual evidence and makes no assumptions about where matter and existence came from, only that at some point there was a vast expansion. The other, claims to have all the answers but with no evidence. 



Red1966 said:


> We haven't found "a lot of other plants", let alone "in 'goldilocks zones' around other stars". The FEW planets we have observed were gas giants, not inhabitable at all.





Padawanbater2 said:


> The big bang theory is totally different from creationism. Creationism (intelligent design) takes a top down approach of creation, that man and all the other animals were created by God in their current form. The big bang theory states that all matter in the universe expanded from a single point in the distant past. One idea is used to explain the origins of man based on a biblical world view, the other is used to explain the origins of the universe using the scientific method. One idea doesn't have any supporting evidence outside it's own religious teachings, the other has decades of scientific research and a few nobel prizes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great answer. Saved me some time.

I'll add this;




> WASHINGTON (AP) - Scientists have estimated the first cosmic census of planets in our galaxy and the numbers are astronomical: at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way.
> 
> At least 500 million of those planets are in the not-too-hot, not-too-cold zone where life could exist. The numbers were extrapolated from the early results of NASA's planet-hunting Kepler telescope.




With ~500 billion galaxies (one approximation) that we know of, that's 500,000,000,000 x 500,000,000 = *25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000* planets that could possibly sustain life. 

But yeah, earth is a total anomaly with our 'perfect position' in regards to the sun.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The big bang theory is totally different from creationism. Creationism (intelligent design) takes a top down approach of creation, that man and all the other animals were created by God in their current form. The big bang theory states that all matter in the universe expanded from a single point in the distant past. One idea is used to explain the origins of man based on a biblical world view, the other is used to explain the origins of the universe using the scientific method. One idea doesn't have any supporting evidence outside it's own religious teachings, the other has decades of scientific research and a few nobel prizes.


 The big bang theory is just pushing back the date of creationism. It still portrays everything as being created by "magic". Decades of research on something that happened 145 BILLION years ago is no different than counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin


Padawanbater2 said:


> How do you know that it's wrong to steal from someone?


 We were told so by religion. In nature, animals "steal" from each other all the time. Are they evil?


Padawanbater2 said:


> "Data from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog (HEC) suggests that, of the 859 exoplanets which have been confirmed as of 3 January 2013, nine potentially habitable planets have been found, and the same source predicts that there may be 30 habitable extrasolar moons around confirmed planets. The HEC also states that of the 15,874 transit threshold crossing events (TCE) which have recurred more than three times (thus making them more likely to be actual planets), discovered by the Kepler probe up until 3 January 2013, that 262 planets (1.65%) have the potential to be habitable, with an additional 35 "warm jovian" planets which may have habitable natural satellites." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Potentially_habitable_planets


 "potentially", "may be", "have the potential". Yeah, that's definitive.


Padawanbater2 said:


> You've misunderstood the explanation, your beach analogy doesn't work or make sense in this context. As the universe expands and galaxies move away from the Earth, the effect creates the redshift we observe. Just like if 5 people are standing around you with a candle and start walking outward, not only are they themselves moving, but the space between you and them is actually growing, that's why the force of the expansion is increasing, increasing the wavelength of the light they're emitting.


[/QUOTE] "Just like if 5 people are standing around you" Your theory isn't that they were standing "around" me, but that we once were wholly contained inside the same point, a object that has no surface area or volume. "your ("beach" deleted)) analogy doesn't work or make sense" Nobody in the world but you thinks "the force of the expansion is increasing". That statement is wholly yours.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> The big bang theory is just pushing back the date of creationism. It still portrays everything as being created by "magic". Decades of research on something that happened 145 BILLION years ago is no different than counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin


Then how do you explain redshift or cosmic background radiation? 

14.5 billion years, big difference



Red1966 said:


> We were told so by religion. In nature, animals "steal" from each other all the time. Are they evil?


Animals of lower intelligence don't have the capacity for good or evil, it's simple survival at that level

OK, then how do we know slavery is wrong? Organized religion has condoned slavery for thousands of years, how do you know it's wrong?



Red1966 said:


> "potentially", "may be", "have the potential". Yeah, that's definitive.


Are you suggesting nothing can be known about something without physically actually being there to observe it?

This is another reason I continuously reiterate you're not qualified to have valid opinions about science, you don't understand how it works 



Red1966 said:


> "Just like if 5 people are standing around you" Your theory isn't that they were standing "around" me, but that we once were wholly contained inside the same point, a object that has no surface area or volume. "your ("beach" deleted)) analogy doesn't work or make sense" Nobody in the world but you thinks "the force of the expansion is increasing". That statement is wholly yours.


"The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor a(t) has a positive second derivative, so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time. In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since around redshift of z~0.5. The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> The big bang theory is just pushing back the date of creationism. It still portrays everything as being created by "magic".


Not at all. It makes no claims about how things were created, least of all by 'magic'. The most logical explanation, that makes the least amount of assumptions is that matter has always existed in some form, or another. 



> Decades of research on something that happened 145 BILLION years ago is no different than counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin We were told so by religion.


Forensic science, (you know, the stuff that solves murders and crimes) is not guessing. It's using evidence to formulate a hypothesis. Huge difference. 



> In nature, animals "steal" from each other all the time. Are they evil?


Animals don't 'steal' because stealing requires rules about possession, which animals do not have. Animals don't have a sense of 'self', so how could they possibly have a sense of one's possessions, or taking possessions from another animal? Likewise, animals don't 'murder' each other, they kill for survival. Except domestic cats, they're just assholes.



> "potentially", "may be", "have the potential". Yeah, that's definitive.


Just because science doesn't have an absolute answer for something doesn't mean god did it. 'God of the gaps' argument....



> "Just like if 5 people are standing around you" Your theory isn't that they were standing "around" me, but that we once were wholly contained inside the same point, a object that has no surface area or volume. "your ("beach" deleted)) analogy doesn't work or make sense" Nobody in the world but you thinks "the force of the expansion is increasing". That statement is wholly yours.


That's not true, everything is gaining momentum, as in, speeding up, moving further away form one another....



> The *accelerating universe* is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor
> 
> 
> 
> ...


EDIT: Aw, the page hadn't refreshed and I didn't see your post Pad.... funny we cited the same paragraph... lol


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Then how do you explain redshift or cosmic background radiation?


 Redshift and cosmic radiation don't prove, or even imply, that the entire universe was once just a point with no area or volume.


Padawanbater2 said:


> 14.5 billion years, big difference


 So what? At that scale, you might as well say "forever".


Padawanbater2 said:


> Animals of lower intelligence don't have the capacity for good or evil, it's simple survival at that level


 So you agree that it is our concept of it, not anything innate.


Padawanbater2 said:


> OK, then how do we know slavery is wrong? Organized religion has condoned slavery for thousands of years, how do you know it's wrong?


 Because current religion says so.


Padawanbater2 said:


> Are you suggesting nothing can be known about something without physically actually being there to observe it?


 I'm suggesting the big bang theory is just that, a theory. Don't put words in my mouth. It gives away the fact you are dishonest.


Padawanbater2 said:


> This is another reason I continuously reiterate you're not qualified to have valid opinions about science, you don't understand how it works


 I do understand how it works. You quote some cockamamie theory and declare it is science. Then try to pretend any who disagree with you "don't understand how it works".


Padawanbater2 said:


> "The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor a(t) has a positive second derivative, so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time. In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since around redshift of z~0.5. The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe


 If the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, then at some point it was completely motionless and then started moving at such a slow rate that it wouldn't have been able to overcome gravitational forces, thus remaining a point for all time. The theory of an ever increasing velocity flies in the face of conservation of energy and matter. Frankly, arguing that the universe was created in an infinitesimal fraction of a second sounds pretty much like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Redshift and cosmic radiation don't prove, or even imply, that the entire universe was once just a point with no area or volume.


I'm not sure about *why* scientists believe space didn't exist, but the fact that the universe started at a focal point, is just that; a fact. Red shift shows that everything was once very, very close together.




> So what? At that scale, you might as well say "forever". So you agree that it is our concept of it, not anything innate.


Morality itself, isn't innate it's a social construct derived from social animals attempting to live harmoniously. 



> Because current religion says so.


The bible, as far as I know, hasn't changed since it was translated into the KJV. It condones slavery, and even goes into the stipulations of owning, selling, and beating, slaves. 




> I'm suggesting the big bang theory is just that, a theory. Don't put words in my mouth. It gives away the fact you are dishonest.


The theory of gravity is 'just a theory' too. A 'scientific theory' isn't just a guess, the fact that you're suggesting it's 'just a theory', is very clear evidence to anyone scientifically literate that you have no idea what you're talking about. The theory of the Big bang has *exceptional predictive powers*, that's how they found the background radiation and the gravitational waves. 



> I do understand how it works. You quote some cockamamie theory and declare it is science. Then try to pretend any who disagree with you "don't understand how it works". If the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, then at some point it was completely motionless and then started moving at such a slow rate that it wouldn't have been able to overcome gravitational forces, thus remaining a point for all time. The theory of an ever increasing velocity flies in the face of conservation of energy and matter. Frankly, arguing that the universe was created in an infinitesimal fraction of a second sounds pretty much like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


It might sound like it *to you,* but that is *absolutely* *not* what is being said. That is a problem you have with comprehending what's being explained, not a problem with the explanation. Religion claims everything was 'created', science does not, as science doesn't operate on baseless assumptions.

The 'cockamamie theory', as you called it, is supported by massive amounts of data, observations, and correct predictions.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Redshift and cosmic radiation don't prove, or even imply, that the entire universe was once just a point with no area or volume.


Redshift indicates that objects are moving away from the Earth at an increasing rate and the cosmic background radiation shows us the disbursement of matter in the early universe, both are strong pieces of evidence that support the big bang theory



Red1966 said:


> So what? At that scale, you might as well say "forever".


Again, are you suggesting we can't learn anything at all about the Earth because geology takes place over billions of years? 

Why would the time scale matter if there is still data that can be measured? 



Red1966 said:


> So you agree that it is our concept of it, not anything innate.


The concept of good and bad is not innate, no



Red1966 said:


> Because current religion says so.


So? Where does religion derive its authority? 



Red1966 said:


> I'm suggesting the big bang theory is just that, a theory. Don't put words in my mouth. It gives away the fact you are dishonest.


You don't understand how science works, a "theory" in science is a collection of facts explaining something, it's not just a "guess" as you seem to believe. 

It was also also first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest



Red1966 said:


> I do understand how it works. You quote some cockamamie theory and declare it is science. Then try to pretend any who disagree with you "don't understand how it works".


"The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, *and it is widely accepted within the scientific community.*"

"cockamamie" LOL!



Red1966 said:


> If the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, then at some point it was completely motionless and then started moving at such a slow rate that it wouldn't have been able to overcome gravitational forces, thus remaining a point for all time. The theory of an ever increasing velocity flies in the face of conservation of energy and matter. Frankly, arguing that the universe was created in an infinitesimal fraction of a second sounds pretty much like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


Again, you don't understand what you're talking about.. Trust me on this, these ideas are simply beyond the scope of your ability to understand them and your lack of objective reasoning. Couple that with your political and religious bias and it's clear to anyone why you wouldn't accept these things as fact in light of the mountains of evidence, because you can't


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> I'm not sure about *why* scientists believe space didn't exist, but the fact that the universe started at a focal point, is just that; a fact. Red shift shows that everything was once very, very close together.


 No, it's a theory. That's why it's called "The Big Bang Theory". Even those who postulated it only call it a theory. Red shift indicates objects are moving away from each other, not that they were ever "very, very close".


Beefbisquit said:


> Morality itself, isn't innate it's a social construct derived from social animals attempting to live harmoniously.


 Thanks for agreeing with me.


Beefbisquit said:


> The bible, as far as I know, hasn't changed since it was translated into the KJV. It condones slavery, and even goes into the stipulations of owning, selling, and beating, slaves.


 What is your point? Are you claiming bible readers still practice slavery?


Beefbisquit said:


> The theory of gravity is 'just a theory' too. A 'scientific theory' isn't just a guess, the fact that you're suggesting it's 'just a theory', is very clear evidence to anyone scientifically literate that you have no idea what you're talking about. The theory of the Big bang has *exceptional predictive powers*, that's how they found the background radiation and the gravitational waves.


 Gravity isn't considered a theory. You seem to think a theory is a proven fact. It isn't. I didn't suggest it was a theory. THE ORIGINATORS DID. Background radiation was discovered shortly after Marconi discovered electromagnetic radiation, long before the big bang theory was postulated. You can't even describe "gravitational waves"


Beefbisquit said:


> It might sound like it *to you,* but that is *absolutely* *not* what is being said. That is a problem you have with comprehending what's being explained, not a problem with the explanation. Religion claims everything was 'created', science does not, as science doesn't operate on baseless assumptions.


 You seem to think your explanations have a lot more credibility than they actually do. The big bang theory claims everything was "created", yet you accept it as fact, even though the even originators don't claim it to be fact.


Beefbisquit said:


> The 'cockamamie theory', as you called it, is supported by massive amounts of data, observations, and correct predictions.


 Since I didn't specify any particular theory, your statement is just a complete fabrication. If you're referring to "the big bang", even the originators don't claim it to be fact. If you're referring to "global warming", their predictions didn't happen, that's why they changed it to "climate change". That way, no matter what happens, they can pretend they "predicted" it.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Redshift indicates that objects are moving away from the Earth at an increasing rate and the cosmic background radiation shows us the disbursement of matter in the early universe, both are strong pieces of evidence that support the big bang theory Again, are you suggesting we can't learn anything at all about the Earth because geology takes place over billions of years? Why would the time scale matter if there is still data that can be measured?  The concept of good and bad is not innate, no So? Where does religion derive its authority?  You don't understand how science works, a "theory" in science is a collection of facts explaining something, it's not just a "guess" as you seem to believe. It was also also first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest "The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, *and it is widely accepted within the scientific community.*" "cockamamie" LOL! Again, you don't understand what you're talking about.. Trust me on this, these ideas are simply beyond the scope of your ability to understand them and your lack of objective reasoning. Couple that with your political and religious bias and it's clear to anyone why you wouldn't accept these things as fact in light of the mountains of evidence, because you can't


 Where was geology mentioned? Time distorts and/or erases data. So does distance. Where did I say religion has any authority? I don't even have a religion. A theory is not a fact or a collection of facts. You still haven't explained how the big bang theory and "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" are not two ways of saying the same thing.. Frankly, you have no idea what my religious beliefs are. Pretending you are correct because you seem to think you are smarter than me is childish. And to be frank once again, your "science" sounds much like religion to me.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Where was geology mentioned? Time distorts and/or erases data. So does distance. Where did I say religion has any authority? I don't even have a religion. A theory is not a fact or a collection of facts. You still haven't explained how the big bang theory and "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" are not two ways of saying the same thing.. Frankly, you have no idea what my religious beliefs are. Pretending you are correct because you seem to think you are smarter than me is childish. And to be frank once again, your "science" sounds much like religion to me.



"At that scale you might as well say forever" implies we can't know how the big bang happened because it happened so long ago. It doesn't matter how much time has passed as long as there is something to measure. 

You said we know what is good and bad because "current religion says so", so where does religion get the authority to decide what is good and bad?

Germ theory, the theory of gravity, game theory, information theory, the theory of special relativity, quantum theory.. You don't understand how science works, and as Beefbisquit pointed out, not knowing what the word "theory" means in science to the scientifically literate is a big indication of that

The big bang theory has sufficient amounts of evidence for most scientists and reasonable people to conclude it's the closest to correct model of our universe we have available, creationism doesn't have any supporting evidence outside its own teachings

So what are your religious beliefs? 

I am demonstrably smarter than you when it comes to science

"Science is religion" is what the scientifically illiterate say about science


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

"Something to measure" is a pretty low bar. Why do you ask me where religion gets its authority? I never said it had any. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you can't debate what I say, don't pretend I said something and argue with that. You clearly don't know what a theory is, yet pretend I somehow must accept theory as fact. Your big bang theory is pretty much claiming "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". "closest to correct", whether you admit to it or not, is still not an endorsement. My religious beliefs are none of your business, but I will tell you I'm not a Christian. You are not demonstrably smarter than anyone, in fact, you seem to equate political correctness with intelligence. There is no correlation Pretending your religion is "science" is laughable..


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> "Something to measure" is a pretty low bar. Why do you ask me where religion gets its authority? I never said it had any. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you can't debate what I say, don't pretend I said something and argue with that. You clearly don't know what a theory is, yet pretend I somehow must accept theory as fact. Your big bang theory is pretty much claiming "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". "closest to correct", whether you admit to it or not, is still not an endorsement. My religious beliefs are none of your business, but I will tell you I'm not a Christian. You are not demonstrably smarter than anyone, in fact, you seem to equate political correctness with intelligence. There is no correlation Pretending your religion is "science" is laughable..


All you need in science is something to measure/test

I ask you where religion gets its authority because you said we know what is good and bad because "current religion says so". So where does current religion get the authority to say what is good or bad? So what if "current religion says so", virtually everything else says current religion is wrong, so why do you accept the authority from current religion instead of virtually anything else, especially considering you said you're not religious?

You've demonstrated you don't understand what theory means. The big bang theory has multiple avenues of evidence as I've already explained to you. 

"Closest to correct" is better than "well, I guess so..", and I'm fine with that

Why are you ashamed to express your religious beliefs?

I'll demonstrate I'm smarter than you when it comes to science, ready?

Do you accept the big bang theory? No

Do I accept the big bang theory? Yes

Do you accept the theory of evolution? No

Do I accept the theory of evolution? Yep

Do you accept equal people should have equal rights? No

Do I accept equal people should have equal rights? Mhmm

Do you accept redshift, universal exponential expansion? No

Do I accept redshift, universal exponential expansion? Sure do

Do you accept abortion is a medical procedure? Fuck no!

Do I accept abortion is a medical procedure? Of course!

Do you accept...

Do I really need to keep going?


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

"All you need in science is something to measure/test " That's about as stupid as you can get. I have not claimed religion has any authority. Stop pretending I did, liar. "Theory" by DEFINITION, is unproven. ""Closest to correct" is better than "well, I guess so..", and I'm fine with that." So much for your standard of proof. Assuming I'm ashamed of my religious beliefs is asinine. Where have I ever stated people shouldn't have equal rights, barring criminals? No answer, because you always accuse anyone disagreeing with you of racism. Where have I stated evolution doesn't exist? Redshift and universal exponential expansion don't indicate the entire universe would fit inside a single point. Euthanasia is a medical procedure, I don't support that either. Do you need to keep going? I don't know. How many times do you need to accuse me of beliefs I have never had to to prove your religion? Tell us more how theory should be accepted as fact. Show us how scientifically illiterate you are. Make more false statements about me. Meanwhile, I'll watch TV.


----------



## tyler.durden (Mar 29, 2014)

It seems germane to clarify what the word Theory means in science, as opposed to it's meaning to the layman in common vernacular of merely being a guess. A theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, made up of many laws and facts. The hierarchy of scientific knowledge from lesser to greater is fact, hypothesis, law, and the highest being theory. A theory takes an already existing phenomena and explains it, and can even predict it. Theory is the logical construct of facts, laws, and tested hypotheses that when put together in a logical fashion gives us the explanation of natural phenomena. This short video explains it clearly - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B2Uh79-fGA P.S. Mods, what happened to the text style and video insert buttons???


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> No, it's a theory. That's why it's called "The Big Bang Theory". Even those who postulated it only call it a theory.


Your ignorance is showing. Stop saying 'it's just a theory'. Gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory, both of them are also established facts. Theory, in the scientific world, means explanation not 'guess', like you think it does.



> Red shift indicates objects are moving away from each other, not that they were ever "very, very close".


You dolt... if EVERYTHING is moving away from one another, where did it start out??? Jesus Christ, you're slow.



> Thanks for agreeing with me.


Morality, as you define it, predates any religion or language. 



> What is your point? Are you claiming bible readers still practice slavery?


You said slavery stopped because religion 'said so', which is patently false.



> Gravity isn't considered a theory. You seem to think a theory is a proven fact. It isn't. I didn't suggest it was a theory. THE ORIGINATORS DID. Background radiation was discovered shortly after Marconi discovered electromagnetic radiation, long before the big bang theory was postulated. You can't even describe "gravitational waves"


The Theory of Gravity, is ABSOLUTELY a theory. How do you not know this basic grade 9 science? 

Einstein's theory of General Relativity ring a bell? Why things fall? You know, it's the 'theory' that keep satellites in the air, and GPS working..... but hey, it's 'just a theory'. 

Take a look, it's in a book....
[video=youtube;WfGhfI_NwcA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGhfI_NwcA[/video]



> You seem to think your explanations have a lot more credibility than they actually do. The big bang theory claims everything was "created", yet you accept it as fact, even though the even originators don't claim it to be fact.


That's a lie. The 'Big Bang theory' says ABSOLUTELY nothing about creation. No one knows what was pre-big bang.



> Since I didn't specify any particular theory, your statement is just a complete fabrication. If you're referring to "the big bang", even the originators don't claim it to be fact. If you're referring to "global warming", their predictions didn't happen, that's why they changed it to "climate change". That way, no matter what happens, they can pretend they "predicted" it.


Another bold faced lie. The Big Bang theory is hands down the best explanation we have for explaining the origins of the universe, and it has tremendous predicting power, as we've seen time and time again with better and better telescope shots. Theory means explanation, not guesswork. Again, *THEORY MEANS EXPLANATION NOT GUESSWORK.*

Do you read at all? 'Climate change' *pre-dates *global warming as a term. They are absolutely *NOT* interchangeable terms. Global warming is what causes climate change, scientists didn't come up with a new term because predictions failed. As you've already been show in another thread, but I'll post it here just so others can see you're full of shit.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Wow, so many idiots who don't know what "theory" means. Amazing. Must be guberment schools.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Wow, so many idiots who don't know what "theory" means. Amazing. Must be guberment schools.


E=MC^2

The most known equation in science

"Just a theory"

You idiot


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Let me educate you fools: Full Definition of THEORY 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances often used in the phrase in theory 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation .......................... b : an unproved assumption : conjecture ...................................................... c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> E=MC^2 The most known equation in science "Just a theory" You idiot


 Keep making a fool of yourself.


----------



## tyler.durden (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Let me educate you fools: Full Definition of THEORY 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances often used in the phrase in theory 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation .......................... b : an unproved assumption : conjecture ...................................................... c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject


 Number 5 in your post above is how theory is used in science...


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

5,6, and 7. None denoting a fact. " a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" You don't know what "plausible" means either. So how does your foot taste?


----------



## tyler.durden (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> 5,6, and 7. None denoting a fact. " a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" You don't know what "plausible" means either. So how does your foot taste?


 Yes, the definition you posted was brief (referring to number 5), and due to its brevity, it could not go into all aspects that encompass scientific theory. It's description was longer and more comprehensive in my previous post, but the wiki entry is very good and maybe easier to understand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge (above facts, hypothesis, and laws).[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]"


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 29, 2014)

You guys are the only ones using the word "guess". Perhaps a Freudian slip? And your definition from wikipedia doesn't imply fact. And would encompass theories proven false ages ago. "The Earth is flat" was a theory. How "reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive" was that? A theory is above facts? Do you have any idea how stupid you look?


----------



## tyler.durden (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> You guys are the only ones using the word "guess". Perhaps a Freudian slip? And your definition from wikipedia doesn't imply fact. And would encompass theories proven false ages ago. "The Earth is flat" was a theory. How "reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive" was that? A theory is above facts? Do you have any idea how stupid you look?


 Scientific theory is above facts, as it is the highest form of scientific knowledge made up of many facts and laws. Please actually read the wiki entry in its entirety. The Flat Earth model was not a theory, just an archaic belief - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth This would be a good opportunity for you to learn, it is not wise to shit on it. I can understand why you are defensive, and feel the need for aggression; you came into this thread with an attitude and misconceptions, and those falsehoods were dealt with handily by people much more well versed in science than yourself. Ad hominems were thrown at you, and you feel the need to strike back. You are obviously out of your league here, we know it, you know it and most members reading this know it. You don't follow science or really understand it, but many of us here do. It only makes sense that people who study and follow science will understand it better than someone who does not. Please take the time to ask questions, to read, comprehend, and learn. It will serve you better than your right-fight attitude, especially when you don't have the knowledge to back it up. There is no shame in ignorance, but there is in attempting to defend it...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 29, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> You guys are the only ones using the word "guess". Perhaps a Freudian slip? And your definition from wikipedia doesn't imply fact. And would encompass theories proven false ages ago. "The Earth is flat" was a theory. How "reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive" was that? A theory is above facts? Do you have any idea how stupid you look?


_You_ are the one unsuccessfully trying to interchange "theory" with "guess". Example "the Earth is flat was _just a theory_.." 

You don't understand what "theory" means, you don't understand how science works, no wonder you don't accept valid scientific theories, just like I said before, you can't because your worldview would be shattered. 

A theory is a collection of facts that attempt to explain the same thing. The theory of evolution is _just a theory_, the big bang theory is _just a theory_, the theory of special relativity is _just a theory_... Germ theory, game theory, etc... all accepted scientific facts, all classified as 'scientific theories'. You're simply ignorant of what the word means and you highlight that with every post.


----------



## Heisenberg (Mar 30, 2014)

*Fact*: A basic statement established by experiment or observation. All facts are true under specific conditions. Some facts may be false when re-tested with better instruments. 

*Law*: A logical relationship between two or more things that is based on a variety of facts and proven hypothesis. It is often a mathematical statement of how two or more quantities relate to each other. 

*Hypothesis*: A tentative statement that can be tested by direct experiment or observation. A proven hypothesis can be expressed as a law or a theory. 

*Theory*: An explanation for why certain laws and facts exist that can be tested to determine its accuracy. (This is what a theory means to science. In general terms, a theory can mean &#8220;guess&#8221; or &#8220;idea&#8221;.)
*
Belief*: A statement that is not scientifically demonstrable in the same way as facts, laws, hypotheses or theories. (This is what a belief is to science. To humans, a belief is any proposition we feel says something accurate about the state of the world.)


Facts do not 'become' theories, and a theory is never 'upgraded' to a law. Facts report, laws describe, and theories explain.

^^The above is taken from a quiz given to applicants of NASA.

When speaking of scientific theories, saying "it's just a theory" is about the most illiterate statement one could make. It reveals a lack of even the most elementary understanding of the scientific process. Someone who argues with the scientific definition of theory while calling everyone else a fool is interested not in the truth, but in having their ignorance validated.





"A word like 'theory' is a technical scientific term," said Michael Fayer, a chemist at Stanford University. "The fact that many people understand its scientific meaning incorrectly does not mean we should stop using it. It means we need better scientific education."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> You guys are the only ones using the word "guess". Perhaps a Freudian slip? And your definition from wikipedia doesn't imply fact. And would encompass theories proven false ages ago. "The Earth is flat" was a theory. How "reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive" was that? A theory is above facts? Do you have any idea how stupid you look?


It's not a wiki definition. 

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html



> A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step&#8212;known as a theory&#8212;in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2



> *Fact:* In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
> 
> 
> *Hypothesis:* A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
> ...





> Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/



> *1. Hypothesis*
> The general public so widely misuses the words hypothesis, theory and law that scientists should stop using these terms, writes physicist Rhett Allain of Southeastern Louisiana University, in a blog post on Wired Science. [Amazing Science: 25 Fun Facts]
> "I don't think at this point it's worth saving those words," Allain told LiveScience.
> A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that can actually be tested. But "if you just ask anyone what a hypothesis is, they just immediately say 'educated guess,'" Allain said.
> ...


http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/theory-definition.htm



> *Definition: *In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result.
> 
> 
> *Also Known As: *scientific theory, theories
> ...



http://evolution.about.com/od/Overview/g/What-Is-A-Scientific-Theory.htm



> *Definition: *A *scientific theory* is much different than a "theory" in common terms. While the word "theory" is generally used to mean a guess or an uncertainty, scientific theories are much more than that.
> In science, an idea starts out as a hypothesis, or an educated guess as to why or how something is happening. Those hypotheses undergo a lot of experimental trials in various ways and data is collected. Over time, as more and more data is collected, a hypothesis can become a scientific theory. The more a hypothesis is supported by many different experiments and many different experimenters, the stronger the scientific theory. However, scientific theories can change as more data is collected.
> The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. It began as a hypothesis that has been tested time after time and always supported. There is a plethora of data to back up the Theory of Evolution. Even though detractors say that it's just a "theory", the fact that it is a scientific theory means it is much closer to being a scientific truth than an educated guess.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

http://biology.about.com/od/biologydictionary/g/celltheory.htm



> *Definition: *The Cell Theory is one of the basic principles of biology. Credit for the formulation of this theory is given to german scientists Theodor Schwann, Matthias Schleiden, and Rudolph Virchow.
> 
> *The Cell Theory states:*
> 
> ...


But it's JUST A THEORY right? 

How can we possibly have nuclear power plants and weapons if Atomic Theory is JUST A THEORY?



> a·tom·ic the·o·ry
> _noun_
> noun: *atomic theory
> 
> ...


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> _You_ are the one unsuccessfully trying to interchange "theory" with "guess". Example "the Earth is flat was _just a theory_.." You don't understand what "theory" means, you don't understand how science works, no wonder you don't accept valid scientific theories, just like I said before, you can't because your worldview would be shattered. A theory is a collection of facts that attempt to explain the same thing. The theory of evolution is _just a theory_, the big bang theory is _just a theory_, the theory of special relativity is _just a theory_... Germ theory, game theory, etc... all accepted scientific facts, all classified as 'scientific theories'. You're simply ignorant of what the word means and you highlight that with every post.


 "The fact that it is a scientific theory means it is much CLOSER to being a scientific truth than an educated guess." The two of you are about as weird as you can get. You blather on and on about idiocies. You don't even recognize the meaning of the word theory. You think you can change the definition of words to suit your agenda. Sorry, but you ain't Webster. You are doomed to having people snicker behind your backs forever. Goodbye clowns.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> "The fact that it is a scientific theory means it is much CLOSER to being a scientific truth than an educated guess." The two of you are about as weird as you can get. You blather on and on about idiocies. You don't even recognize the meaning of the word theory. You think you can change the definition of words to suit your agenda. Sorry, but you ain't Webster. You are doomed to having people snicker behind your backs forever. Goodbye clowns.


You are incapable of distinguishing between a 'theory', and a 'scientific theory'. It's not the definitions fault, it's your own.

How about Encyclopedia Britannica's definition?



> *scientific theory**,* systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
> 
> In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.
> 
> ...


I'm ok with having uneducated people, who can't distinguish between a 'scientific theory' and a 'theory', laugh at me because it's a bit like having a petulant child call you a 'stinky bum', laugh, and run away. Grown ups don't get upset when children don't understand things, they just chalk it up to an ignorance regarding the world. What's annoying is that you celebrate your ignorance instead of attempting to actually learn something.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> "The fact that it is a scientific theory means it is much CLOSER to being a scientific truth than an educated guess."


Science doesn't delve in certainty, only probability. 

If something is 99.9999999999999999999% likely to be true, we consider it a truth, e.g. cell theory, atomic theory, theory of relativity....


----------



## joefoxx (Mar 30, 2014)

Anyone know the scene from the film "Children of Men" at the end where they take the baby downstairs and all the fighting stops as soldiers, rebels, and civilians watch the (re)solution to their whole conflict walk right out between them?....... There is amazed silence for a full 10 seconds then............... ...They go right back to fighting hahhahahaha


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> You are incapable of distinguishing between a 'theory', and a 'scientific theory'. It's not the definitions fault, it's your own. How about Encyclopedia Britannica's definition? I'm ok with having uneducated people, who can't distinguish between a 'scientific theory' and a 'theory', laugh at me because it's a bit like having a petulant child call you a 'stinky bum', laugh, and run away. Grown ups don't get upset when children don't understand things, they just chalk it up to an ignorance regarding the world. What's annoying is that you celebrate your ignorance instead of attempting to actually learn something.


 Once again , your own citation disproves your point. " A scientific theory is a structure SUGGESTED by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner." You truly are an idiot. The hole you're in is plenty deep enough, but you continue to dig.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> Science doesn't delve in certainty, only probability. If something is 99.9999999999999999999% likely to be true, we consider it a truth, e.g. cell theory, atomic theory, theory of relativity....


 Nice number you totally made up. Couldn't find anymore citations that prove you wrong? Or did you realize you were just making an ass out of yourself and decided to just start making shit up?


----------



## Heisenberg (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> You don't even recognize the meaning of the word theory. You think you can change the definition of words to suit your agenda. Sorry, but you ain't Webster. You are doomed to having people snicker behind your backs forever. Goodbye clowns.


 At this point it becomes hard to believe that you are actually this intellectually bankrupt. The meaning of theory we give is confirmed by multiple scientific bodies and every scientific textbook from high school to universities. It easier to believe you are simply trolling than that you are actually this dedicated to your ego. The fact that all you can offer are personal insults tells us you have exhausted your mediocre reasoning skills and resorted to the level of playground bully.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

You keep pretending theory means fact. I don't need to offer anything to prove my point. You guys keep providing it for me. If you want to pretend you have proven your religion to be the true calling, go ahead. But don't expect anyone other than your fellow religious fanatics to take you seriously. Your insults mean nothing to me, because I have no respect for those who try to force their dogma on others.


----------



## Heisenberg (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> You keep pretending theory means fact.


 You keep pretending we haven't distinguished fact from theory. This is a projection that tells us your brain really does understand its own pretense on some level. "Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending yourself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in yourself, while attributing them to others."


Red1966 said:


> I don't need to offer anything to prove my point. You guys keep providing it for me. If you want to pretend you have proven your religion to be the true calling, go ahead. But don't expect anyone other than your fellow religious fanatics to take you seriously.


 Couldn't think of anything relevant to say? Do you suppose obfuscation somehow insulates you from looking foolish? Interesting that you use the word "pretend" again. Meanwhile, it has not escaped our notice that you are desperate to have the Big Bang be just another creation story so that you can continue to believe creationism is plausible. It must be very inconvenient to have beliefs which require you to deny the context of words and disparage accepted theories in order to maintain consonance. Is it easier to pretend "just a theory" is a meaningful statement that it is to admit you are contradicting reality?


Red1966 said:


> Your insults mean nothing to me, because I have no respect for those who try to force their dogma on others.


 Sizing up the intellectual worth of your statements is not insulting you. So far, since you have been shown the scientific context of the word theory, your responses have been an elaboration of "nu uh" and "neener neeener". No one is belittling you, it's just that you are using juvenile rhetoric as defense and then wondering why you are not being respected as an adult. You are presenting yourself as a child, which is no fault of ours. If you allow your intellect to become more encompassing then it wouldn't seem so small.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Heisenberg said:


> You keep pretending we haven't distinguished fact from theory. This is a projection that tells us your brain really does understand its own pretense on some level. "Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending yourself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in yourself, while attributing them to others." Couldn't think of anything relevant to say? Do you suppose obfuscation somehow insulates you from looking foolish? Interesting that you use the word "pretend" again. Meanwhile, it has not escaped our notice that you are desperate to have the Big Bang be just another creation story so that you can continue to believe creationism is plausible. It must be very inconvenient to have beliefs which require you to deny the context of words and disparage accepted theories in order to maintain consonance. Is it easier to pretend "just a theory" is a meaningful statement that it is to admit you are contradicting reality? Sizing up the intellectual worth of your statements is not insulting you. So far, since you have been shown the scientific context of the word theory, your responses have been an elaboration of "nu uh" and "neener neeener". No one is belittling you, it's just that you are using juvenile rhetoric as defense and then wondering why you are not being respected as an adult. You are presenting yourself as a child, which is no fault of ours. If you allow your intellect to become more encompassing then it wouldn't seem so small.


 Who are you kidding? I never promoted creationism. You are. You wrap it in mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-science, but its still its still just a modern variation of "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." You can't prove your point, so you try to pretend I'm a religious zealot. I'm not. You provide citations that plainly state "theory" is just a working proposition and then try to convince us it says something entirely different. Tell me again how no one is belittling me while calling me a child. Meanwhile, I wait for you to provide another citation that proves you wrong again. Seems like you're a little bitter about making fools of yourselves over and over. I would be, too.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Once again , your own citation disproves your point. " A scientific theory is a structure SUGGESTED by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner." You truly are an idiot. The hole you're in is plenty deep enough, but you continue to dig.


LOL - Theories use laws, and facts to form an explanation that is supported by the evidence. 

You are either the dumbest person ever, or a troll.

Still waiting for you to comment on Atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, evolution, and cell theory....


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> LOL - Theories use laws, and facts to form an explanation that is supported by the evidence. You are either the dumbest person ever, or a troll. Still waiting for you to comment on Atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, evolution, and cell theory....


 If you think an plausible explanation equals a proven fact, you have to be very gullible. Why do you want to change the subject so much? This isn't about Atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, evolution, and cell theory, its about your creation theory. So how are you any different than the Catholic church persecuting those who would blaspheme their sacred texts? Other than you lack the power to burn at the stake those who disagree with you?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Who are you kidding? I never promoted creationism. You are. You wrap it in mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-science, but its still its still just a modern variation of "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."


The big bang makes no suggestion of creation. If that's what you're getting out of it, you're sadly mistaken. The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed. Your argument is borderline retarded.



> You can't prove your point, so you try to pretend I'm a religious zealot. I'm not. You provide citations that plainly state "theory" is just a working proposition and then try to convince us it says something entirely different.


Again, theories use facts, and laws, to tell us 'how' something happened. Do you go to the Dr? Ever had an X-ray? CT scan? Ever taken medicine like anti-biotics? Theories work because their supported by evidence. In the case of the Big Bang, MYRIAD FUCKING EVIDENCE.



> Tell me again how no one is belittling me while calling me a child.


 You literally said 'you're not webster' (LOL BTW), when we showed you countless articles from scientific publications that clearly differentiate between the laymen use of theory and the scientific usage of theory. Scientific theories work, if they didn't we wouldn't have power plants, medical imaging equipment, GPS satellites, NASA, modern biology, or a plethora of other things. 

We treat *some* scientific theories as fact. Some are more likely to be true than others. String theory is fringe, Big Bang theory, evolution, cell theory, etc., are not. 



> Meanwhile, I wait for you to provide another citation that proves you wrong again. Seems like you're a little bitter about making fools of yourselves over and over. I would be, too.


I don't think you're reading the same thing we're posting.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> If you think an plausible explanation equals a proven fact, you have to be very gullible. Why do you want to change the subject so much? This isn't about Atomic theory, germ theory, relativity, evolution, and cell theory, its about your creation theory.


Creation theory... lol 

Nothing is claiming to have been created. How are you not getting this? Your dumbassery is amazing, I thought Nevaeh was obtuse but you take the RIU dunce cap award. 

The Big Bang is the best possible explanation we have. It's an explanation based on actual evidence, that by definition, doesn't require faith and isn't a religion. 

Please feel free to shut the fuck up.



> So how are you any different than the Catholic church persecuting those who would blaspheme their sacred texts? Other than you lack the power to burn at the stake those who disagree with you?


A sacred text has had no experimentation, and didn't follow the scientific method. It isn't falsifiable; or in other words, it's UNTESTABLE. 

The evidence that was predicted to exist with regards to the big bang theory DOES EXIST. They found it! It's tangible. 

Religion only needs faith, scientific theory is based on facts, laws, experimentation and constant testing. Both are explanations, one requires tangible things, one does not.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> The big bang makes no suggestion of creation. If that's what you're getting out of it, you're sadly mistaken. The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed. Your argument is borderline retarded. Again, theories use facts, and laws, to tell us 'how' something happened. Do you go to the Dr? Ever had an X-ray? CT scan? Ever taken medicine like anti-biotics? Theories work because their supported by evidence. In the case of the Big Bang, MYRIAD FUCKING EVIDENCE. You literally said 'you're not webster' (LOL BTW), when we showed you countless articles from scientific publications that clearly differentiate between the laymen use of theory and the scientific usage of theory. Scientific theories work, if they didn't we wouldn't have power plants, medical imaging equipment, GPS satellites, NASA, modern biology, or a plethora of other things. We treat *some* scientific theories as fact. Some are more likely to be true than others. String theory is fringe, Big Bang theory, evolution, cell theory, etc., are not. I don't think you're reading the same thing we're posting.


 The big bang theory attempts to explain the origins of the universe. If that is not creation, what is? You support the theory, but state EXACTLY the opposite in the next post>"The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed." I don't think you read the things you are posting. Or don't understand them. But once once again, you argue against your own point..."The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed."


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> The big bang theory attempts to explain the origins of the universe. If that is not creation, what is? You support the theory, but state EXACTLY the opposite in the next post>"The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed." I don't think you read the things you are posting. Or don't understand them. But once once again, you argue against your own point..."The most likely scenario is that the universe in some form or another has always existed."


IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER.

Did that snippet escape that steel trap you call a mind? We don't know what existed pre-big bang but it wasn't 'nothing'. As far as we know matter can't be created or destroyed, and the big bang doesn't contradict that. It only starts explaining after the anomaly expanded. We have no idea what it was made of, or how it came to be.

[video=youtube;SYlIYnKmGV4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlIYnKmGV4[/video]


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> Creation theory... lol Nothing is claiming to have been created. How are you not getting this? Your dumbassery is amazing, I thought Nevaeh was obtuse but you take the RIU dunce cap award. The Big Bang is the best possible explanation we have. It's an explanation based on actual evidence, that by definition, doesn't require faith and isn't a religion. Please feel free to shut the fuck up. A sacred text has had no experimentation, and didn't follow the scientific method. It isn't falsifiable; or in other words, it's UNTESTABLE. The evidence that was predicted to exist with regards to the big bang theory DOES EXIST. They found it! It's tangible. Religion only needs faith, scientific theory is based on facts, laws, experimentation and constant testing. Both are explanations, one requires tangible things, one does not.


 Scant measurements of untested accuracy across millions of light years isn't proof the universe was once only a tiny point of absolutely no volume. You claim the entire universe was brought forth from nothing, yet claim "Nothing is claiming to have been created." (Nice way to mangle the English language there. Even "Nothing" is arguing with you) Your faith is strong, Grasshopper, but your reasoning is weak. I seem to be no more than a bystander here while you guys keep proving yourselves wrong.....You make my points for me and then become enraged about it. This is so easy.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 30, 2014)

So you're not religious and you don't accept the big bang theory, so, what, you've come up with something all by yourself that you believe?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Scant measurements of untested accuracy across millions of light years isn't proof the universe was once only a tiny point of absolutely no volume. You claim the entire universe was brought forth from nothing, yet claim "Nothing is claiming to have been created." (Nice way to mangle the English language there. Even "Nothing" is arguing with you) Your faith is strong, Grasshopper, but your reasoning is weak. I seem to be no more than a bystander here while you guys keep proving yourselves wrong.....You make my points for me and then become enraged about it. This is so easy.


The incredibly detailed images of background microwave radiation support the 'bang' aspect. The red shift supports the fact that everything was once at a focal point. The gravitational waves are a virtual 'echo' of the bang. There is a ton more evidence that all fits together nicely into the Big Bang theory.

I did not claim the universe was brought forth from 'nothing', that's your fallacious argument creeping back in again. *No one said that, stop arguing against something no one said.* It's a ridiculous straw man argument, and it's the reason you're being treated like an unruly child instead of an adult. 

Now pick up your toys and go home.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> The incredibly detailed images of background microwave radiation support the 'bang' aspect. The red shift supports the fact that everything was once at a focal point. The gravitational waves are a virtual 'echo' of the bang. There is a ton more evidence that all fits together nicely into the Big Bang theory. I did not claim the universe was brought forth from 'nothing', that's your fallacious argument creeping back in again. *No one said that, stop arguing against something no one said.* It's a ridiculous straw man argument, and it's the reason you're being treated like an unruly child instead of an adult. Now pick up your toys and go home.


 " the fact that everything was once at a focal point" =/="I did not claim the universe was brought forth from 'nothing'" Don't even need to comment..lol...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 30, 2014)

How do you believe the universe began?


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> So you're not religious and you don't accept the big bang theory, so, what, you've come up with something all by yourself that you believe?


 I'm not going to pretend I know the origins of the universe. But I don't go around claiming theory is fact. Doing that, is religion.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> I'm not going to pretend I know the origins of the universe. But I don't go around claiming theory is fact. Doing that, is religion.


The big bang is incredibly likely to have happened. They knew *what *to look for before they *knew *it existed, they started looking, and found exactly what they hypothesized would be there. Now, decades later new evidence is still coming in that supports the big bang theory. It would be incredibly unlikely that after all the calculations scientists have done, all the observations they've made, all the predictions that have been successful, that the big bang theory 'is a bust', as you put it. 

Why do you disagree with the findings of virtually every astrophysicist in existence? What merit do you posses that would make anyone consider you knowledgeable about astrophysics? 

And you're absolutely right; saying everything was once at a focal point is not the same as saying everything came from 'nothing'. For there to be 'nothing' and then 'something' implies a magical force. Science says "there was something, we have no idea what, but it was in one area, and was very hot, and it exploded into what we call the universe."

If you want speculation, look to the big crunch theory, or multiverse theory, or string theory.... 

Big Big has real evidence, real observations, tangible data, and a tested hypothesis. Is it possible new evidence could overturn these findings? It's possible, but given the sheer amount of data and the predictive power of the theory, it's unlikely new evidence will overturn, but rather strengthen the big bang argument, providing new details and information into what happened.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> I'm not going to pretend I know the origins of the universe. But I don't go around claiming theory is fact. Doing that, is religion.


The cosmic background radiation is literally a picture of the early universe







Light spots are where matter coalesced into stars and galaxies, dark spots are where there is no matter, interstellar space

Do you think they just made this up or what?


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

"The big bang is incredibly likely to have happened" tells me I have caused you to begin to doubt your religious convictions. But remember, a point is an imaginary construct that has no surface area and no volume. Literally, nothing. The Big Bang theory postulates the entire universe came from a point, not an area. I guess a good analogy is I may have converted you from a Catholic to a Protestant. I never found fault that the matter in universe may have been much more compact than it is now, but the theory that it all appeared all at once from a single point is just irrational to me. A lot of the data you cite predated the theory and is what prompted the theory. The data does not prove the theory. The theory is an attempt to explain the data. When and if new data is discovered that contradicts the theory, it will be abandoned, at least by most.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The cosmic background radiation is literally a picture of the early universe
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I don't think it proves the big bang theory. Where is the point the universe supposedly originated from? Don't say the middle, unless you claim the Earth is the center of the universe


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> "The big bang is incredibly likely to have happened" tells me I have caused you to begin to doubt your religious convictions. But remember, a point is an imaginary construct that has no surface area and no volume. Literally, nothing. The Big Bang theory postulates the entire universe came from a point, not an area. I guess a good analogy is I may have converted you from a Catholic to a Protestant.


You have done nothing, other than shown you don't understand how the scientific method works and you can't distinguish between laymen terms and scientific terms. 



> I never found fault that the matter in universe may have been much more compact than it is now, but the theory that it all appeared all at once from a single point is just irrational to me.


Luckily, the reality of how the universe began doesn't depend upon your comprehension of it. PHEW! It's not irrational to the experts who study this on a day by day basis, and have an understanding of physics.



> A lot of the data you cite predated the theory and is what prompted the theory. The data does not prove the theory. The theory is an attempt to explain the data. When and if new data is discovered that contradicts the theory, it will be abandoned, at least by most.


They postulated about bacground radiation before they knew it existed. They first came up with the big bang theory based on the red-shift, but there have been ample amounts of evidence collected since the Hubble constant.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Yet its still called a theory. Too bad you just can't quite grasp the meaning of the word. I guess your faith in your favorite brand of magic creationism has been renewed. I should have know better than to argue with a religious zealot.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Yet its still called a theory. Too bad you just can't quite grasp the meaning of the word. I guess your faith in your favorite brand of magic creationism has been renewed. I should have know better than to argue with a religious zealot.


So is Atomic theory, gravitational theory, cell theory, germ theory, and countless others. Just because it says theory doesn't mean it's less likely to be true. You depend on countless theories to 'be true' to perform various tasks throughout the day. You are the biggest type of moron, the one who denies the hand that feeds. You bask in scientific breakthroughs while condemning the methods in which they're provided to you, all the while being completely ignorant and scientifically illiterate.

You can't understand the difference between a *scientific theory* and the *layman *usage of the word; even when you're presented with multiple examples from well documented scientific resources. 

You are moron incarnate.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> I don't think it proves the big bang theory. Where is the point the universe supposedly originated from? Don't say the middle, unless you claim the Earth is the center of the universe


These concepts are beyond your ability to grasp them. You simply can't understand them, that's why you don't accept them, that's the hard truth. It's like you walked into an operating room full of surgeons without ever having taken a single anatomy class. You point out that we can stop the bleeding of the patient on the table by shaving his hand and giving him some water, everyone else says that's retarded and you don't know what you're talking about. That's pretty much what's happening here.

You're out of your league and the harder you try the funnier it gets!


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

So now all you got is name-calling. There is no gravitational theory. There is a law of gravity. That's what they call a theory when they believe it has been proven. You still think you get to redefine the meaning of words. Tomorrow I will go back to work building equipment used in the study of elemental physics while you go back to bussing tables or whatever it is you do.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> These concepts are beyond your ability to grasp them. You simply can't understand them, that's why you don't accept them, that's the hard truth. It's like you walked into an operating room full of surgeons without ever having taken a single anatomy class. You point out that we can stop the bleeding of the patient on the table by shaving his hand and giving him some water, everyone else says that's retarded and you don't know what you're talking about. That's pretty much what's happening here. You're out of your league and the harder you try the funnier it gets!


 It's funny you think you're smart. I guess that's why you aspire to reach that lofty goal of $900 a month.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> So now all you got is name-calling. There is no gravitational theory. There is a law of gravity. That's what they call a theory when they believe it has been proven. You still think you get to redefine the meaning of words. Tomorrow I will go back to work building equipment used in the study of elemental physics while you go back to bussing tables or whatever it is you do.


What do you think the Theory of relativity is? It explains why things fall.... pick up a grade 9 science text book.

I might believe you clean the toilets in a factory that makes equipment for physics experiments.... but you seem to lack the cognitive capabilities to grasp simple concepts, so that might be a stretch.


----------



## tyler.durden (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> So now all you got is name-calling. There is no gravitational theory. There is a law of gravity. That's what they call a theory when they believe it has been proven. You still think you get to redefine the meaning of words. Tomorrow I will go back to work building equipment used in the study of elemental physics while you go back to bussing tables or whatever it is you do.


 Actually, gravity is both a law and a theory - http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory It's strange that you wouldn't do a quick google search before making such an erroneous statement. As Heis pointed out, the LAW of gravity describes WHAT happens by careful observation, analysis and testing. Gravitational THEORY explains WHY this happens. Theory NEVER 'graduates' into a law, never. They are 2 ver distinct things. Since theories are made up of many facts, stating facts are superior to theories is like taking a bed sheet and saying that the individual threads that the sheet consists of are superior to the entire bed sheet. To state a theory can become a law is to say that the bed sheet can 'graduate' to an individual thread. WTF? To posit that shows a lack of even basic scientific knowledge. I've pointed out an error on your part as you stated clearly above, 'There is no gravitational theory. There is a law of gravity. That's what they call a theory when they believe it has been proven'. You were clearly wrong. Lets' see if you have any integrity and are able to admit an error, or if you attempt to deflect, deny or rationalize your error. I know which my money's on, hope I'm wrong...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> It's funny you think you're smart. I guess that's why you aspire to reach that lofty goal of $900 a month.


It's funny _you_ think you're smart! It's already been demonstrated you're wrong about every scientific topic that comes up, but you'll keep providing the entertainment


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> What do you think the Theory of relativity is? It explains why things fall.... pick up a grade 9 science text book. I might believe you clean the toilets in a factory that makes equipment for physics experiments.... but you seem to lack the cognitive capabilities to grasp simple concepts, so that might be a stretch.


 I make twice what you do in a month every week. Lets not pretend you are even close to licking my boots.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

tyler.durden said:


> Actually, gravity is both a law and a theory - http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory It's strange that you wouldn't do a quick google search before making such an erroneous statement. As Heis pointed out, the LAW of gravity describes WHAT happens by careful observation, analysis and testing. Gravitational THEORY explains WHY this happens. Theory NEVER 'graduates' into a law, never. They are 2 ver distinct things. Since theories are made up of many facts, stating facts are superior to theories is like taking a bed sheet and saying that the individual threads that the sheet consists of are superior to the entire bed sheet. To state a theory can become a law is to say that the bed sheet can 'graduate' to an individual thread. WTF? To posit that shows a lack of even basic scientific knowledge. I've pointed out an error on your part as you stated clearly above, 'There is no gravitational theory. There is a law of gravity. That's what they call a theory when they believe it has been proven'. You were clearly wrong. Lets' see if you have any integrity and are able to admit an error, or if you attempt to deflect, deny or rationalize your error. I know which my money's on, hope I'm wrong...


 So you want to argue semantics? Theories are not made up of facts. Theories are an attempt to explain facts. If you want to worship your "point" god, go right ahead. In the beginning, a tiny point too small to measure created the Heavens and the Earth. See, I support your right to worship in your own way, I wrote the first line of your holy script. Do I get to be a saint now?


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> It's funny _you_ think you're smart! It's already been demonstrated you're wrong about every scientific topic that comes up, but you'll keep providing the entertainment


 It's been demonstrated you think I'm wrong. But then again you appear to be making less than a full-time minimum wage job would pay. That's a pretty good indicator of what your opinion is worth.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> I make twice what you do in a month every week. Lets not pretend you are even close to licking my boots.


Hahahaha!!! Nothing worthwhile to say so you have to pretend to be a big shot in some other facet of your life. You are pathetic! 

You can't grasp extremely simple concepts, and you want us to believe you're some big wig? Furthermore, anyone can make huge money with no high school education working on an oil rig. What does that have to do with ones ability to grasp a complicated concept or their intelligence? 

Pick up your toys and go home. You're not very good at this.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> It's been demonstrated you think I'm wrong. But then again you appear to be making less than a full-time minimum wage job would pay. That's a pretty good indicator of what your opinion is worth.


Me, everyone in this thread, every scientist on Earth, pretty much anyone who can tie their shoe.. 

Have you ever even taken an integrated science course? A basic biology course? Basic cosmology or astronomy course? Do you just repeat the _science_ you hear from right wing sources?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> Theories are not made up of facts.


Facts are observations that are repeatedly confirmed. Even then, a scientific fact is NEVER CERTAIN. Theories are built on facts and laws, and are again, repeatedly tested. 

I support your right to be an idiot, but I also support my own right to call you an idiot in whichever fashion I deem necessary.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 30, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> I make twice what you do in a month every week. Lets not pretend you are even close to licking my boots.


Look at this little man trying to pull out his wallet and act like it means anything here

You make money, so your opinion must be worth more or more correct?


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Me, everyone in this thread, every scientist on Earth, pretty much anyone who can tie their shoe.. Have you ever even taken an integrated science course? A basic biology course? Basic cosmology or astronomy course? Do you just repeat the _science_ you hear from right wing sources?


 Well, you and the other clown. You can't speak for any scientists at all. They sure don't speak to you. When they talk to me, and they do talk to me, they are always wanting me to make something for them. Fortunately for me, I can only work on DOE projects. An integrated science course sounds like general science with a fancy name. Required at my high school. Biology, check. Astronomy, nope. Majored in math, sciences, and social studies. Took college level math in high school for two credit hours transferable to any college. All while working part-time, nights and weekends. Had to work to help out the family so never could go to college. But I know the definition of "theory", more than you can say.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 30, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Look at this little man trying to pull out his wallet and act like it means anything here You make money, so your opinion must be worth more or more correct?


 No, "I" am worth more. You may not like it, but money is how the world keeps score. You think anything means anything here? You are all people I will never meet. Your opinions mean nothing here. Lets be honest, YOUR opinions mean nothing anywhere. But enough of this, I have a job to go to tomorrow. Do you?


----------



## Nutes and Nugs (Mar 31, 2014)

Rush Limbaugh used to say this and it's true.
You are what you are worth.

[video=youtube;I8P80A8vy9I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8P80A8vy9I[/video]


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 31, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> No, "I" am worth more. You may not like it, but money is how the world keeps score. You think anything means anything here? You are all people I will never meet. Your opinions mean nothing here. Lets be honest, YOUR opinions mean nothing anywhere. But enough of this, I have a job to go to tomorrow. Do you?


I've been to four post secondary schools, I have a degree, several diplomas, *and *a handful of IT certifications. I was an independent IT consultant and a Senior analyst with IBM, and have owned my own house since I was 23. Currently, I'm studying to be a chef, FYI.

There's my e-peen; is that what we're doing when we have nothing worthwhile to say? Equating things we own to the validity of our scientific understanding? You really are dense!

All of this is meaningless to this conversation and says nothing about value of a person. You, in this case, are useless. You don't understand what theory means, even with repeated attempts to show you the error of your ways, you still reject the accepted scientific definition of theory because of some personal agenda. The fact that you build things for a living says absolutely nothing about your scientific background, and has no merit in this discussion. We all know this, and your attempts to convince others of your credibility is pathetic and sad. 

How much money you make, (which your most likely lying about anyway) says nothing about your intelligence or ability to understand science, which is what we're discussing. The fact that you needed to change the subject to make yourself feel better about being scientifically illiterate proves you have the mind set of a child who wants things 'his way' or he's going to throw a temper tantrum. 

If you're actually 48 years old and are still this clueless about science, I'm at a loss.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Mar 31, 2014)

What are the chances we don't orbit the sun? (Heliocentric theory)

What are the chances that diseases aren't caused by germs, bacteria, viruses, etc.? (Germ theory)

What are the chances that we didn't evolve from other lifeforms? (Evolutionary theory)

What are the chances that we don't know the structure of the atom? (Atomic theory)

What are the chances GPS satellite are only working because of a fluke? (Theory of relativity)

What are the chances the red-shift, background radiation, and gravity waves and other information is incorrect? (Big bang theory)


All of these theories have prediction power and are virtually agreed upon with consensus, in the scientific community. 

Laymen opinions, like yours Red, mean less than nothing. You offer no reason why the data collected by scientists shouldn't be considered factual, you have no background in the topic we're discussing, you've demonstrated an inability to grasp simple concepts like the definition of 'scientific theory', your only arguments are 'arguments from incredulity', e.g. it doesn't make sense to *me, *therefore I can't be true. 

It's like watching a child try to do a task that's about 10 years ahead of him; you know they're going to get upset, start pouting, and have a temper tantrum when they can't get their own way. You try to explain to them, but in the end children need to be disciplined and sent to their rooms every know and again.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 31, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> No, "I" am worth more. You may not like it, but money is how the world keeps score. You think anything means anything here? You are all people I will never meet. Your opinions mean nothing here. Lets be honest, YOUR opinions mean nothing anywhere. But enough of this, I have a job to go to tomorrow. Do you?


Money is not how the world "keeps score" of anything and the amount of money a person has or makes has no bearing on their ability to understand or apply scientific ideas to the real world, as you illustrate. 

If we're being honest, you've had what, nearly 50 years to express your ideas to the world and see if they held any value and the world laughed right back in your face and told you to sit down and be quiet because you're too ignorant and arrogant to accept when you could be wrong. 50 years, red.. What have you accomplished in that time period? Discounting failed marriages and deceased family members, what happened? All your money couldn't save any of those


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 31, 2014)

Beefbisquit said:


> I've been to four post secondary schools, I have a degree, several diplomas, *and *a handful of IT certifications. I was an independent IT consultant and a Senior analyst with IBM, and have owned my own house since I was 23. Currently, I'm studying to be a chef, FYI. There's my e-peen; is that what we're doing when we have nothing worthwhile to say? Equating things we own to the validity of our scientific understanding? You really are dense! All of this is meaningless to this conversation and says nothing about value of a person. You, in this case, are useless. You don't understand what theory means, even with repeated attempts to show you the error of your ways, you still reject the accepted scientific definition of theory because of some personal agenda. The fact that you build things for a living says absolutely nothing about your scientific background, and has no merit in this discussion. We all know this, and your attempts to convince others of your credibility is pathetic and sad. How much money you make, (which your most likely lying about anyway) says nothing about your intelligence or ability to understand science, which is what we're discussing. The fact that you needed to change the subject to make yourself feel better about being scientifically illiterate proves you have the mind set of a child who wants things 'his way' or he's going to throw a temper tantrum. If you're actually 48 years old and are still this clueless about science, I'm at a loss.


 I posted the definition of "theory" from Merriam-Webster, the authority recognized everywhere in the English speaking world, yet you insist that your redefinition is correct. There is just no convincing you. If you insist on being a fool, there is nothing anyone can do about it.


----------



## Red1966 (Mar 31, 2014)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Money is not how the world "keeps score" of anything and the amount of money a person has or makes has no bearing on their ability to understand or apply scientific ideas to the real world, as you illustrate. If we're being honest, you've had what, nearly 50 years to express your ideas to the world and see if they held any value and the world laughed right back in your face and told you to sit down and be quiet because you're too ignorant and arrogant to accept when you could be wrong. 50 years, red.. What have you accomplished in that time period? Discounting failed marriages and deceased family members, what happened? All your money couldn't save any of those


 So how is it you know " world laughed right back in your face and told you to sit down and be quiet"? You don't. Sounds like you have nothing to argue but insults. Meanwhile, I have Merriam-Webster confirming my statements. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Apr 1, 2014)

"scientific theory


a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"


"scientific theory


systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, *that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws* regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. *A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner."*


----------



## Beefbisquit (Apr 7, 2014)

Red1966 said:


> So how is it you know " world laughed right back in your face and told you to sit down and be quiet"? You don't. Sounds like you have nothing to argue but insults. Meanwhile, I have Merriam-Webster confirming my statements. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory


Still unable to figure out that putting another word in front of 'theory' changes the definition?

You posted the definition of 'theory', not 'scientific theory'... How is this fact alluding you?


----------

