Hey kids, let me show you proof that God's real

[Blake]

"Bakari Warren, 25, is facing criminal charges after police said she accelerated and crashed her vehicle into a pole while driving with her kids in order to prove to them that God is real,*according to the New York Post.

Warren told police she intentionally hit the concrete pole Wednesday morning to show her children that God would protect them...."

http://fox61.com/2018/03/26/watch-mom-crashes-car-to-prove-to-kids-god-is-real/

[Isitjustme?]

Bakari lol I can see where this is going to go

[boutons_deux]

yep, God made the auto mfrs install 3 pt seat belts, soft dashboards, structural crash resistance, collapsible steering columns, airbags, etc.

God bless God, He's the Man.

God-befuddled, dumbed-down Bakari should repeat the test at 70 mph and see how real God is.

[baseline bum]

Only people dumber than white evangelicals are black evangelicals.

[rmt]

Only people dumber than white evangelicals are black evangelicals.

So where do asian evangelicals lie on that spectrum?

[Blake]

So where do asian evangelicals lie on that spectrum?

What does God tell you

[DMC]

So where do asian evangelicals lie on that spectrum?

What do you have against Asians?

[rmt]

What do you have against Asians?

I don't have anything against asians (I'm one [asian evangelical]). It's a joke.

[DMC]

I don't have anything against asians (I'm one [asian evangelical]). It's a joke.

Are you Asian or Cock Asian?

[baseline bum]

Are you Asian or Cock Asian?

She's black Jamaican chink

[DMC]

She's black Jamaican chink

Is she hot though?

[benefactor]

Only people dumber than white evangelicals are black evangelicals.
:lol treating every Tyler Perry movie like is Oscar-worthy
:lol sending their entire check to TD Jakes and Creflo Dollar

[rmt]

Are you Asian or Cock Asian?

What is that last term?

[DMC]

What is that last term?

Caucasian.. cawk asian

[Spurtacular]

Do you blame God for making you a cuck, Blake?

[Blake]

Do you blame God for making you a cuck, Blake?

Bible god doesn't exist. Who do you blame for making you so obsessed with cucks, trannies and gays

[johnsmith]

I went a long time not believing in God....I’m somewhere in the middle these days....having said that, I will NEVER understand why non believers get so mad at believers and vice versa.

[rjv]

I went a long time not believing in God....I’m somewhere in the middle these days....having said that, I will NEVER understand why non believers get so mad at believers and vice versa.

well don't come to ST if you're looking for ontological arguments. it's just good old fashioned hard core atheist v. bible thumping in these parts.

[baseline bum]

I went a long time not believing in God....I’m somewhere in the middle these days....having said that, I will NEVER understand why non believers get so mad at believers and vice versa.

The biggest problem I have is the religious right trying to get creationism taught in science classes. I don't want the US to end up like the middle east did after they shunned intellectuals for piety 1200 years ago.

[Spurtacular]

Bible god doesn't exist. Who do you blame for making you so obsessed with cucks, trannies and gays

I am not bitter about taking an interest in you or reck. What makes you so bitter? Were you bitter before being cucked?

[Blake]

I went a long time not believing in God....I’m somewhere in the middle these days....having said that, I will NEVER understand why non believers get so mad at believers and vice versa.

Christians are constantly pushing their retarded bible shit into politics. It'd be nice if they back off and let logic, science and common sense dictate policy instead.

[spurraider21]

The biggest problem I have is the religious right trying to get creationism taught in science classes. I don't want the US to end up like the middle east did after they shunned intellectuals for piety 1200 years ago.
yes.

on a more macro scale than what specifically is and isn't taught in public classrooms, i fear on a bigger scale the general resentment towards and/or misunderstanding of science. scientific advancement (along with change of political systems from monarchies/feudalism to democracies/republics) is how we mark the improvement of our lives. any time scientific progress is shunned, we take a step backwards. this is why creationists will also be the first to doubt anthropogenic climate change, etc. it's the bigger picture mentality that drives that, and not the specific belief in genesis

all starts with a seed of doubt in the scientific process. the overall mentality is more concerning than the specific curriculum stuff, but those are intertwined, obviously

[Spurtacular]

Christians are constantly pushing their retarded bible shit into politics. It'd be nice if they back off and let logic, science and common sense dictate policy instead.

Were you this bitter before you were a cuck?

[Spurtacular]

The biggest problem I have is the religious right trying to get creationism taught in science classes. I don't want the US to end up like the middle east did after they shunned intellectuals for piety 1200 years ago.

Creationism vs. evolution is not the pivotal issue you want to make it out to be. :lol that you've bought into it so hardcore.

#DumbAss

[baseline bum]

Creationism vs. evolution is not the pivotal issue you want to make it out to be. :lol that you've bought into it so hardcore.

#DumbAss

LOL retard creationist

[Pavlov]

Creationism vs. evolution is not the pivotal issue you want to make it out to be. :lol that you've bought into it so hardcore.

#DumbAssWhy do people want creationism taught in science classes?

[Spurtacular]

Why do people want creationism taught in science classes?

Why do people want the theory of evolution taught in science classes?

[Spurtacular]

LOL retard creationist

:lol Hardcore twat

[baseline bum]

:lol Hardcore twat

LOL retard creationist

[Blake]

Why do people want the theory of evolution taught in science classes?

:lol retard

[spurraider21]

Why do people want the theory of evolution taught in science classes?
the same reason the pythagorean theorem should be taught in geometry classes

[Blake]

But it's just a theorem :cry

[Pavlov]

Why do people want the theory of evolution taught in science classes?Because it's science.

Why do people want creationism taught in science classes?

[Spurtacular]

the same reason the pythagorean theorem should be taught in geometry classes

And what reason is that; state it.

[spurraider21]

And what reason is that; state it.
science should be taught in science classes

etc

it's a really simple concept

[Spurtacular]

Because it's science.

Why do people want creationism taught in science classes?

More specifically, it's theory. Both are theories. Why do theories have your panties in a bunch?

[Spurtacular]

science should be taught in science classes

etc

it's a really simple concept

Yea, cos creationism wouldn't be based on science; just magic. :lol

[spurraider21]

:lmao

[Pavlov]

More specifically, it's theory. Both are theories. Why do theories have your panties in a bunch?Evolution is a scientific theory.

Why do people want creationism taught in science classes?

[Spurtacular]

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Why do people want creationism taught in science classes?

It's a theory; both theories can be taught within the confines of science. This is painfully obvious to anyone who is not a hardcore twat.

[Pavlov]

It's a theory; both theories can be taught within the confines of science. This is painfully obvious to anyone who is not a hardcore twat.What is the scientific theory of creationism?

[spurraider21]

More specifically, it's theory. Both are theories. Why do theories have your panties in a bunch?

creationism isn't a theory. at least not in the context of a scientific theory. any idea that comes out of a brain fart might be a "theory" in a colloquial sense. it has an entirely different definition/application in academia


Yea, cos creationism wouldn't be based on science; just magic. :lol

the one time you are correct, you are trying to be sarcastic, sad. creationism isn't based on science or the scientific method (experimentation and observation... conclusions are derived from evidence). creationism begins with the conclusion that biblical texts are infallible/accurate and works backwards to try (and fail) to prove it up


It's a theory; both theories can be taught within the confines of science. This is painfully obvious to anyone who is not a hardcore twat.

see above. creationism is not a theory. it cannot be taught within the confines of science, since it is incompatible with the body of evidence. nor was the "theory" derived using the scientific method of experimentation and observation, and deriving conclusions from evidence. rather, it begins with it's conclusion

[spurraider21]

just for reference, derp, here's how dictionary.com will help you understand.

definition 1 is the useful one for us here, in the context of science and academia (although i will say they are inaccurate in calling a "law" a synonym. laws are generally able to be expressed as a mathematical construct). definition 2 is probably what you are thinking of, and represents the more colloquial usage of the word

noun, plural theories.1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regardedas correct, that can be used as principles of explanation andprediction for a class of phenomena:Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/principle), law (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/law), doctrine (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/doctrine).


2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject toexperimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that areregarded as reporting matters of actual fact.Synonyms: idea (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/idea), notion hypothesis (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/notion%20hypothesis), postulate (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/postulate).
Antonyms: practice (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/practice), verification (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/verification), corroboration (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/corroboration), substantiation (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/substantiation).

[sickdsm]

Science trumps all. But science only has a theory for so long. Where did the matter from the big bang theory come from? Where did the nothingness come from?

[spurraider21]

Science trumps all. But science only has a theory for so long. Where did the matter from the big bang theory come from? Where did the nothingness come from?
the origin of the matter, or specifically, the energy/heat is an unknown.

i dont think it makes sense to ask where nothingness came from. the lack of something wouldn't have an origin, by definition.

[Pavlov]

Science trumps all. But science only has a theory for so long. Where did the matter from the big bang theory come from? Where did the nothingness come from?That's the great thing about science. It's OK with unknowns and theories can change when new evidence is discovered.

[sickdsm]

That's the great thing about science. It's OK with unknowns and theories can change when new evidence is discovered.

Agreed, but your ALWAYS going to run into the "but where did that come from? Issue. It's an issue that the more the thinks about it the more your head hurts. Matter cannot be created not destroyed so where did it come from? And religion can't answer that either. If God created everything/anything, where did he come from? Neither will ever fully answer those questions.

[Pavlov]

Agreed, but your ALWAYS going to run into the "but where did that come from? Issue. It's an issue that the more the thinks about it the more your head hurts. Matter cannot be created not destroyed so where did it come from? And religion can't answer that either. If God created everything/anything, where did he come from? Neither will ever fully answer those questions.Religion claims it does.

God always has been, according to religion.

[baseline bum]

More specifically, it's theory. Both are theories. Why do theories have your panties in a bunch?

I have a theory you molest kids. Should we teach that in science classes too?

[DisAsTerBot]

Lol derptacular

[Big Empty]

Jesus was an alien and the universe is alive. Every galaxy is equivalent to a cell that makes up ur body. **puff puff cough cough cough**

[spurraider21]

Agreed, but your ALWAYS going to run into the "but where did that come from? Issue. It's an issue that the more the thinks about it the more your head hurts. Matter cannot be created not destroyed so where did it come from? And religion can't answer that either. If God created everything/anything, where did he come from? Neither will ever fully answer those questions.
Well, matter can be converted to and from energy. The singularity as we understand it was a point of heat/energy. And there was no “before” as time did not exist prior to the expansion.

It it gives me a headache too. Gives the smartest theoretical physicists in the world headaches.

i don’t think there has ever been the claim that science as a body of knowledge knows everything about everything. It’s a pretty absurd standard. Science has boundaries but we are always expanding those boundaries. What was “unknowable” 100 years ago is known now.

the humility in not knowing and coming to terms with that is a valuable lesson in and of itself, rather than pretending to know an answer that is demonstrably false or at the very least completely unsupported by evidence or reason

[UNT Eagles 2016]

The biggest problem I have is the religious right trying to get creationism taught in science classes. I don't want the US to end up like the middle east did after they shunned intellectuals for piety 1200 years ago.

Yes. Agree 100%. Very hypocritical. Yes, the Muslims who still do this today in the Middle East and such parts are evil, but some on the far religious right here in the US are almost as bad... minus the killing part, I guess. But still, very hypocritical.

& I'm a right leaning libertarian Trump voting atheist

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Well, matter can be converted to and from energy. The singularity as we understand it was a point of heat/energy. And there was no “before” as time did not exist prior to the expansion.

It it gives me a headache too. Gives the smartest theoretical physicists in the world headaches.

i don’t think there has ever been the claim that science as a body of knowledge knows everything about everything. It’s a pretty absurd standard. Science has boundaries but we are always expanding those boundaries. What was “unknowable” 100 years ago is known now.

the humility in not knowing and coming to terms with that is a valuable lesson in and of itself, rather than pretending to know an answer that is demonstrably false or at the very least completely unsupported by evidence or reason
Better explanation, it's an endless cycle. There always was, there is, and there always will be. No big bang, just endless entropy.

[spurraider21]

Better explanation, it's an endless cycle. There always was, there is, and there always will be. No big bang, just endless entropy.
in fairness, "big bang" is kind of a misnomer, it was a term originally used to make fun of the concept of an original expansion. it isn't thought to be an "explosion" at all

but we know the universe is expanding. we know the expansion is accelerating (though to my understanding, don't know what is driving the acceleration... hence the term 'dark energy'). given that, they've calculated backwards to a starting point.

there is the Futurama-esque idea that there is an ever-going oscillation of the universe... an expansion followed by contraction, etc.

all we can confidently know at this point is that the universe has expanded from a singularity

[baseline bum]

Agreed, but your ALWAYS going to run into the "but where did that come from? Issue. It's an issue that the more the thinks about it the more your head hurts. Matter cannot be created not destroyed so where did it come from? And religion can't answer that either. If God created everything/anything, where did he come from? Neither will ever fully answer those questions.

If you really want to hurt your head, energy/matter can be created from nothing and destroyed; it's only zero sum when averaged out over a period of time. Quantum effects are fucking nuts. I forget the name of the experiment, but there was one where you can measure a force pulling two metal plates together in a vacuum due to virtual particles being created and annihilated out of nothing. I wish I could explain it better but that's quantum field theory and I never studied anything beyond junior level quantum mechanics.

[baseline bum]

in fairness, "big bang" is kind of a misnomer, it was a term originally used to make fun of the concept of an original expansion. it isn't thought to be an "explosion" at all

but we know the universe is expanding. we know the expansion is accelerating (though to my understanding, don't know what is driving the acceleration... hence the term 'dark energy'). given that, they've calculated backwards to a starting point.

there is the Futurama-esque idea that there is an ever-going oscillation of the universe... an expansion followed by contraction, etc.

all we can confidently know at this point is that the universe has expanded from a singularity

And if our theories about black holes are correct anything that could be "before" the singularity can leave no evidence, so we might as well define the big bang as the start of time. It's kind of funny the cosmological constant used to account for dark energy was something Einstein added to his field equation to try to derive a static universe.

[spurraider21]

If you really want to hurt your head, energy/matter can be created from nothing and destroyed; it's only zero sum when averaged out over a period of time. Quantum effects are fucking nuts. I forget the name of the experiment, but there was one where you can measure a force pulling two metal plates together in a vacuum due to virtual particles being created and annihilated out of nothing. I wish I could explain it better but that's quantum field theory and I never studied anything beyond junior level quantum mechanics.
you're much more well versed than I am, so i'm pretty out of my league, but any time i look into quantum mechanics, regardless of what specific principle/test, i end up more confused than i started and with a headache :lol

the most insane to me is the double slit experiment where electrons fired one at a time still leave an interference pattern.... unless you observe the slits. in which case they stop showing interference. freaks me the fuck out, and some think its good evidence of the many worlds interpretation

[spurraider21]

And if our theories about black holes are correct anything that could be "before" the singularity can leave no evidence, so we might as well define the big bang as the start of time. It's kind of funny the cosmological constant used to account for dark energy was something Einstein added to his field equation to try to derive a static universe.
yeah and he ended up rejecting his own cosmological constant... which turned out to be needed :lol

he called it the biggest blunder of his life, and yeah it was a double whoopsie

[baseline bum]

you're much more well versed than I am, so i'm pretty out of my league, but any time i look into quantum mechanics, regardless of what specific principle/test, i end up more confused than i started and with a headache :lol

After taking a couple of classes on it the subject was more confusing than ever :lol

[baseline bum]

yeah and he ended up rejecting his own cosmological constant... which turned out to be needed :lol

he called it the biggest blunder of his life, and yeah it was a double whoopsie

Amazing how that fuckup in his field equation is now shown to be correct by all indications. At least Bell's inequality shows he was dead wrong about "God not playing dice with the universe". Nigga should have still had three Nobels though: one for the photoelectric effect, one for special relativity, and one for general relativity. Too bad he only got one for the photoelectric effect.

[spurraider21]

Amazing how that fuckup in his field equation is now shown to be correct by all indications. At least Bell's inequality shows he was dead wrong about "God not playing dice with the universe". Nigga should have still had three Nobels though: one for the photoelectric effect, one for special relativity, and one for general relativity. Too bad he only got one for the photoelectric effect.
i had just assumed he got one for general relativity

[baseline bum]

i had just assumed he got one for general relativity

Nope, both special relativity and general relativity were pretty controversial at the time and his Nobel award specifically stated it wasn't for relativity. It's pretty funny, his discovery of the photoelectric effect and showing that light comes as quanta of energy was basically the birth of the field of quantum mechanics that he was so at odds with by the 1920s and 30s. It's pretty ridiculous he didn't get one for SR considering you can derive magnetism from the postulates of SR and the known laws of electric interactions.

[spurraider21]

Nope, both special relativity and general relativity were pretty controversial at the time and his Nobel award specifically stated it wasn't for relativity. It's pretty funny, his discovery of the photoelectric effect and showing that light comes as quanta of energy was basically the birth of the field of quantum mechanics that he was so at odds with by the 1920s and 30s.
i still find it absurd that these titans of science could be so diverse... you'd think they'd be significantly more specialized in one particular discipline. how does somebody get from studying light at a quantum level to rewriting the book on gravity, and spacetime :lol

[baseline bum]

i still find it absurd that these titans of science could be so diverse... you'd think they'd be significantly more specialized in one particular discipline. how does somebody get from studying light at a quantum level to rewriting the book on gravity, and spacetime :lol

Einstein said he had been thinking about light his entire life by the time he published his papers on the photoelectric effect and special relativity in 1905. His theory of special relativity came from the idea that if mechanical phenomena follow a law of relativity (like Galileo proposed) it would be stupid for electromagnetic phenomena to not follow it too, that the universe's laws should be simple, not one law for relative frames when studying pulleys and levers and another one for relative frames when studying light and electrons. So then by considering a beam of light from two different reference frames the only way that could work was light having the same speed in all reference frames, even with all the crazy consequences it caused. General relativity came from Einstein being frustrated his special theory couldn't account for accelerated frames of reference. It's pretty cool how GR all came out of his idea that if you were standing in an elevator with no windows you couldn't tell if the elevator was sitting on the surface of the Earth or being pulled by someone in outer space at an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second^2 (eg the equivalence principle). So gravity and acceleration should be indistinguishable.

[baseline bum]

the most insane to me is the double slit experiment where electrons fired one at a time still leave an interference pattern.... unless you observe the slits. in which case they stop showing interference. freaks me the fuck out, and some think its good evidence of the many worlds interpretation

Yeah the double slit experiment is the fucking craziest thing ever. I don't see how it shows any difference between many worlds vs Copenhagen though. When you observe the location of an electron you have to hit it with at least one photon, which causes it to collapse into a wavefunction that has a definite position whereas before the electron was a superposition of a bunch of wavefunctions each of a different definite position. To quote Ramamurti Shankar, the funniest physicist I have ever seen:

“The act of observing an electron is very traumatic for that electron. Right now I’m getting hit by millions of photons. I’m taking it like a man. But for the electron, this is not the same”

Why the collapse of the wavefunction though? Who the hell knows? It's a postulate of quantum mechanics that is accepted because it agrees with all experiments ever done in the field.

[sickdsm]

As a kid I literally thought about that until my head hurt. I had reoccurring dreams where I'd wake up in a panic feeling miniscule next to something gigantic

[UNT Eagles 2016]

in fairness, "big bang" is kind of a misnomer, it was a term originally used to make fun of the concept of an original expansion. it isn't thought to be an "explosion" at all

but we know the universe is expanding. we know the expansion is accelerating (though to my understanding, don't know what is driving the acceleration... hence the term 'dark energy'). given that, they've calculated backwards to a starting point.

there is the Futurama-esque idea that there is an ever-going oscillation of the universe... an expansion followed by contraction, etc.

all we can confidently know at this point is that the universe has expanded from a singularity

It regulates itself, expansion and contraction, to an extent. The idea that everything was ever compressed into the size of an atom was always absurd. It's cyclical and most likely never ending

[ElNono]

Yea, cos creationism wouldn't be based on science

wow... :lol

[spurraider21]

It regulates itself, expansion and contraction, to an extent. The idea that everything was ever compressed into the size of an atom was always absurd. It's cyclical and most likely never ending
what do you base that on?

[ElNono]

It all really comes down to the scientific method, and where the burden of proof lies...

In science you can attribute behavior you don't understand to anything, but then the burden of proof is on you to support it and your peers to bring it down. That synergy is what creates knowledge. We're not talking opinions or faith, but actual tangible, testable, observable behavior.

That's why creationism and other faith or dogma based theories are really intellectually lazy, since once you attributed it to the deity of your choosing, and since such deity is not actually tangible, testable nor observable, the scientific method can no longer be achieved, and, as such it's not science.

It's lazy because once it's attributed to the imaginary guy, the process ends. There's nothing to support or debunk, since it's not testable. IOW, from a scientific standpoint, worthless. It doesn't advance the sciences or knowledge, it doesn't promote advancing the sciences or knowledge. Just junk.

(That's not to say that scientists can't be religious people themselves, which is a completely different topic).

[UNT Eagles 2016]

what do you base that on?

Logic and probability.

Just like numbers... time and space must be infinite. Yes, you can go to a hundred trillion googol, but you can always add one on top of that. So if you run into a wall or a black hole, there's always got to be something beyond that, right?

[spurraider21]

Logic and probability.
wow. who needs to study physics and crunch numbers when you can just talk out your ass

[Blake]

Logic and probability.

Just like numbers... time and space must be infinite. Yes, you can go to a hundred trillion googol, but you can always add one on top of that. So if you run into a wall or a black hole, there's always got to be something beyond that, right?

Or it ultimately loops back around

[Spurtacular]

wow... :lol

In the event that you were to subscribe to a deity, you wouldn't think God would use science? I would think the alternative would be laughable; thus you either haven't thought it out, or you are showing your bias.

[Spurtacular]

It all really comes down to the scientific method, and where the burden of proof lies...

In science you can attribute behavior you don't understand to anything, but then the burden of proof is on you to support it and your peers to bring it down. That synergy is what creates knowledge. We're not talking opinions or faith, but actual tangible, testable, observable behavior.

That's why creationism and other faith or dogma based theories are really intellectually lazy, since once you attributed it to the deity of your choosing, and since such deity is not actually tangible, testable nor observable, the scientific method can no longer be achieved, and, as such it's not science.

It's lazy because once it's attributed to the imaginary guy, the process ends. There's nothing to support or debunk, since it's not testable. IOW, from a scientific standpoint, worthless. It doesn't advance the sciences or knowledge, it doesn't promote advancing the sciences or knowledge. Just junk.

(That's not to say that scientists can't be religious people themselves, which is a completely different topic).

Evolution as a means to existence is nothing but faith, bro. Deifying it while writing off creationism is the ultimate in intellectual laziness and dogma.

[Blake]

In the event that you were to subscribe to a deity, you wouldn't think God would use science? I would think the alternative would be laughable; thus you either haven't thought it out, or you are showing your bias.

Yes it's possible that if a god exists that he used evolution.

[Blake]

Evolution as a means to existence is nothing but faith, bro. Deifying it while writing off creationism is the ultimate in intellectual laziness and dogma.

Lol deifying evolution.

You're really stupid. And lazy.

[Spurtacular]

Yes it's possible that if a god exists that he used evolution.

Among other possibilities.

[Spurtacular]

Lol deifying evolution.

You're really stupid. And lazy.

It's your gospel, bro. You're not a scientist; you're a Christian-hating cuck; come to terms.

[Blake]

It's your gospel, bro. You're not a scientist; you're a Christian-hating cuck; come to terms.

Are you a scientist?

[spurraider21]

Evolution as a means to existence is nothing but faith, bro. Deifying it while writing off creationism is the ultimate in intellectual laziness and dogma.
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific method.

The theory of evolution was able to be developed only because the available evidence led to the conclusion that species have changed over time. The reason evolution is still a working theory hundreds of years later is because even in the present, after many discoveries and emergence of new new evidence (most significantly, genetics) it’s the only theory we have that is consistent with the entire body of evidence.

[spurraider21]

In the event that you were to subscribe to a deity, you wouldn't think God would use science? I would think the alternative would be laughable; thus you either haven't thought it out, or you are showing your bias.
The existence of a god is not necessarily ruled out by science. The issue, as elnono brought up, is that any act attributed to a supernatural being is entirely untestable. That makes that exercise unscientific.

say i pitch the idea that god exists and personally set evolution in motion. We can look for evidence that supports the evolution part. But what evidence could we find that would support the god part? What useful predictions can be made? As darwin was developing his theory of natural selection, he predicted that contrary to what was known at the time, there must be moths in Madagascar with proboscobes about a foot long. No such creature was known to exist at the time, but due to characteristics of plants in the island, he said it must be true. That exact type of moth was discovered decades later.

There is no similar predictive capability when you attribute an act to a deity. Einstein’s theory of relativity laid the groundwork to the prediction that black holes must exist. Predictive capability is usually a sign of a successful theory.

[rjv]

From my understanding, the 'particles out of nothing' scenario is just an experiment where so called "virtual" particles were manipulated with pulses of light. The deeper theoretical physics here involved variational principles, quantum field theory, symmetry group, the bubbling vacuum, and a plethora of cosmological jargon and estoteric terms. Lawrence Krauss went over some of this in "A Universe from Nothing". What he does not address is the more ontological problem of how things form they way they do or the pre-existence of "coming into being". Of course, you can't test for what pre-exists so there's that. My point is something that goes back to Sir Arthur Eddington (in his Gifford Lectures) and the problem of existence prior to space and time. Math can't solve this problem nor can the problem be addressed in the absence of metaphysics. What we get from our mathematical models of the universe (based on observation and experiment) are incomplete representations of physical reality. A deeper question would be why there should even be laws of physics at all. And then there's just the whole problem of string theory...


Also, I just find it interesting that these "arguments' about the existence or non-existence of God come to down to this notion that it is science versus religion problem. Why defer to Hawking (or any learned person or polymath and his or her opinion? That person could not answer the question without stepping outside the scope of science. If a religous person steps outside the domain of faith then what do they defer to? The bible as word? If so, this gives ammunition to those who argue science can reject the existence of God. Hermeneutics? If so, this leads many to a domain of scholarship that they are ignorant of.


Anyway, it's ST so...

[spurraider21]

From my understanding, the 'particles out of nothing' scenario is just an experiment where so called "virtual" particles were manipulated with pulses of light. The deeper theoretical physics here involved variational principles, quantum field theory, symmetry group, the bubbling vacuum, and a plethora of cosmological jargon and estoteric terms. Lawrence Krauss went over some of this in "A Universe from Nothing". What he does not address is the more ontological problem of how things form they way they do or the pre-existence of "coming into being". Of course, you can't test for what pre-exists so there's that. My point is something that goes back to Sir Arthur Eddington (in his Gifford Lectures) and the problem of existence prior to space and time. Math can't solve this problem nor can the problem be addressed in the absence of metaphysics. What we get from our mathematical models of the universe (based on observation and experiment) are incomplete representations of physical reality. A deeper question would be why there should even be laws of physics at all. And then there's just the whole problem of string theory...


Also, I just find it interesting that these "arguments' about the existence or non-existence of God come to down to this notion that it is science versus religion problem. Why defer to Hawking (or any learned person or polymath and his or her opinion? That person could not answer the question without stepping outside the scope of science. If a religous person steps outside the domain of faith then what do they defer to? The bible as word? If so, this gives ammunition to those who argue science can reject the existence of God. Hermeneutics? If so, this leads many to a domain of scholarship that they are ignorant of.


Anyway, it's ST so...
i dont think the purpose of this exercise is to prove or disprove the existence of a god, but rather if god (creationism) should be in science classes

i dont think science aims to "disprove god"... proving a negative has always been considered a waste of effort. while scientists can have their own personal opinions beyond their domain, (some are staunch atheists, some are theists), those scientists aren't out there finding evidence to prove or disprove god.

[rjv]

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/230

[rjv]

i dont think the purpose of this exercise is to prove or disprove the existence of a god, but rather if god (creationism) should be in science classes


now that should be a no-brainer.

[spurraider21]

now that should be a no-brainer.
you would think

then again spurtacular is quite literally a no-brainer

[mingus]

Bible god doesn't exist. Who do you blame for making you so obsessed with cucks, trannies and gays

“Bible God doesn’t exist”

Isn’t that the primitive, irrational, emotional part of your brain making that categorical assertion, oh so highly evolved atheist intelligent being?

[spurraider21]

“Bible God doesn’t exist”

Isn’t that the primitive, irrational, emotional part of your brain making that categorical assertion, oh so highly evolved atheist intelligent being?
in the sense that we know with a near certainty that some of the events in the bible (notably origin of life and the great flood) could not have happened, its safe to say that a god that performed those acts doesnt exist. at least not that version of god

[Blake]

“Bible God doesn’t exist”

Isn’t that the primitive, irrational, emotional part of your brain making that categorical assertion, oh so highly evolved atheist intelligent being?

Lol angry

[mingus]

Blake:

“My knowledge (or perhaps lack thereof) = EVERYONE’S knowledge”.

[mingus]

Lol angry

Me, angry?

I ain’t the one resorting (m)ad hominem.

Don’t project your feelings onto me.

[Blake]

Blake:

“My knowledge (or perhaps lack thereof) = EVERYONE’S knowledge”.

So you believe the bible is 100% true and accurate?

[mingus]

in the sense that we know with a near certainty that some of the events in the bible (notably origin of life and the great flood) could not have happened, its safe to say that a god that performed those acts doesnt exist. at least not that version of god

Or, maybe there is a little bit of fiction thrown into it? Along with a little bit of truth. I’m not of the belief that every word in the Bible comes straight from God.

[Blake]

Me, angry?

I ain’t the one resorting (m)ad hominem.

Don’t project your feelings onto me.

Lol ad hominem is exactly what you came out of the gate with, dumbass.

[mingus]

So you believe the bible is 100% true and accurate?

No. I definitely do not.

But I know that some of it is true. I won’t try & convince you otherwise, however.

God chooses to reveal Himself to certain people. Some people, such as yourself, He didn’t (or hasn’t) felt the need to. It’s not necessarily a group you want to be a part of.

[Blake]

Or, maybe there is a little bit of fiction thrown into it? Along with a little bit of truth. I’m not of the belief that every word in the Bible comes straight from God.

Lol so you get to call some of it fiction but angry when I call all of it fiction.

Ok

[mingus]

Lol ad hominem is exactly what you came out of the gate with, dumbass.

Why are you calling me names?

[mingus]

Lol so you get to call some of it fiction but angry when I call all of it fiction.

Ok

I’m not angry. You keep calling me angry. Like I said, quit projecting.

[Blake]

No. I definitely do not.

But I know that some of it is true. I won’t try & convince you otherwise, however.

God chooses to reveal Himself to certain people. Some people, such as yourself, He didn’t (or hasn’t) felt the need to. It’s not necessarily a group you want to be a part of.

How did God reveal himself to you?

[mingus]

How did God reveal himself to you?

Like I said, it’s not a group you want to be a part of. I sort of envy you.

[rmt]

Like I said, it’s not a group you want to be a part of. I sort of envy you.

Why do you sort of envy him?

[Blake]

:madrun I’m not angry. You keep calling me angry.:madrun

Noted

[Blake]

Like I said, it’s not a group you want to be a part of. I sort of envy you.

Now you're chicken. Ok.

[mingus]

Why do you sort of envy him?

Well.

With that knowledge comes great responsibility. How that knowledge is acquired is where I envy him.

[mingus]

Now you're chicken. Ok.

Or maybe I just like protecting things that are personal to me. Moreover, why would I divulge these personal issues to a person who makes fun of me?

[Blake]

Well.

With that knowledge comes great responsibility. How that knowledge is acquired is where I envy him.

Lol enlightened post.

Explain how God revealed himself to you.

[Blake]

Or maybe I just like protecting things that are personal to me. Moreover, why would I divulge these personal issues to a person who makes fun of me?

So you're embarrassed. Ok.

I don't blame you but Jesus does.

[mingus]

Lol enlightened post.

Explain how God revealed himself to you.

Why should I?

Because you asked?

LOL

[mingus]

So you're embarrassed. Ok.

I don't blame you but Jesus does.

Okay. Whatever you say.

[Avante]

Are you kidding me? Not this...is there a God..? AGAIN.

It works like this....

Some people need a God in their life, so they have one, some don't so they don't. It doesn't matter at all if there really is a God or not, that is meaningless.

I can say this, those I know who have a God in their life are far better off emotionally than those who don't. Hell, just look at how those here without a God act, yep, sad.

[Blake]

Why should I?

Because you asked?

LOL

You came in here guns blazing but you fired blanks. No skin off my back if it ends for you that way.

[Blake]

Okay. Whatever you say.

It's what Jesus said

Luke 9:26*New International Version (NIV)

26*Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

[rmt]

You came in here guns blazing but you fired blanks. No skin off my back if it ends for you that way.

It's not firing blanks. IMO, it's best not to discuss religion on this board. Although I keep reminding myself that MY Lord and Savior died for you all especially when the name-calling/insults fly :-)

[mingus]

You came in here guns blazing but you fired blanks. No skin off my back if it ends for you that way.

“Guns blazin”

LOL

I came in here to simply address an assertion you made, which is what you do/don’t THINK you know applies to everyone. That you think I came in here “guns blazin” just shows the degree to which you are emotional & your self-righteous defensiveness about this subject.

It always amazes me how similar evangelicals & militant are. At their respective cores, they are exactly the same: hyper-sensitive to opposing views, self-righteous, & incredibly emotional. Their ad-hominem of choice is “heathen” & yours is “dumbass”.

[mingus]

It's what Jesus said

Luke 9:26*New International Version (NIV)

26*Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

I’m not ashamed of His words. I’ve my reasons for not revealing them on this board. If you want to pm me, then I’d be happy to share my experiences with you so long as you can show me a modicum of respect.

[Blake]

It's not firing blanks.

Well to recap, he came in calling me unintelligent, proceeded to call parts of the bible fiction and then said bible god revealed himself to him but was afraid to say how because he would get laughed at.

You'll need to show which bullets he shot were real.



IMO, it's best not to discuss religion on this board.



"Political Forum(107 Viewing)

Post about politics, news, government, religion and business"


a great many of our politicians state out how we need to incorporate the bible into our public policies. That's a big problem.

[mingus]

I never said I’d get laughed at. You are putting words in my mouth.

[Blake]

I’m not ashamed of His words. I’ve my reasons for not revealing them on this board. If you want to pm me, then I’d be happy to share my experiences with you so long as you can show me a modicum of respect.

Oh so now you want me to show you respect after your Christian ass comes right in right at me? That's so good. :lol

:lol you just said you're afraid of getting laughed at, so either you're ashamed, embarrassed or terrified. You can pick which one and then go fuck yourself, chicken shit.

[Blake]

Moreover, why would I divulge these personal issues to a person who makes fun of me?


I never said I’d get laughed at. You are putting words in my mouth.

K, somehow I'm making fun of you without laughing.

[spurraider21]

Or, maybe there is a little bit of fiction thrown into it? Along with a little bit of truth. I’m not of the belief that every word in the Bible comes straight from God.
if the bible is partially fiction, then it would be accurate to say that the god of the bible does not exist in that form.

put another way... Commodus is an actual historical character. but Commodus as portrayed by Joaqin Phoenix in Gladiator doesn't exist. So if I said "Gladiator" Commodus doesn't exist, that would be perfectly accurate.

and until we can sit and parse which parts of the bible are said to be fiction and which are said to be nonfiction, can't really take it much further. our understanding of god comes from the actions he took. if we take away all his acts (creation of the universe/earth, creation of life, the great flood, sending his son to earth, etc), then our understanding of him quite literally disappears. imo, if you remove creation of life and noah's ark, which are quite thoroughly disputed by the available body of evidence... those are two pretty big ones

regardless, the discussion has been deviated from the "does creationism belong in classrooms" which is what i was here to talk about.

[mingus]

K, somehow I'm making fun of you without laughing.

You don’t see how disingenuous you are being?

[Blake]

You don’t see how disingenuous you are being?

That's rich

[mingus]

Oh so now you want me to show you respect after your Christian ass comes right in right at me? That's so good. :lol

:lol you just said you're afraid of getting laughed at, so either you're ashamed, embarrassed or terrified. You can pick which one and then go fuck yourself, chicken shit.

“Comes right at me”

LOL

[mingus]

That's rich

You deserve to be as miserable as you so obviously are.

[benefactor]

God "experiences" are the result of emotional/psychological manipulation. I once thought God revealed himself to me too...but I realized that was me wanting it to be real more than it being real. Getting into churches and around like minded people who also had "experiences" only made me believe it more. It was only after I started doing some research did I realize that most of what I believed was made up by people.

I do think there is something out there, but I don't have a clue what it is or how it works. But one thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic religions. He's a little too hippie for me, but I do like a lot of the stuff Alan Watts has to say about spirituality.

[Avante]

I can't handle being around a group of non believers for very long, they wimper around too much, always some problem, aren't happy with their life. Totally different deal being with believers, they have a good outlook for things, far FAR happier.

I have no doubts SOMETHING is responsible for all this, noway this ....BANG~~~~~ But, I have no idea what that SOMETHING really is.

[Blake]

You deserve to be as miserable as you so obviously are.

Uh huh

Thanks Christian

[Blake]

“Bible God doesn’t exist”

Isn’t that the primitive, irrational, emotional part of your brain making that categorical assertion, oh so highly evolved atheist intelligent being?


“Comes right at me”

LOL

"Disingenuous"

Lol

[spurraider21]

blake is to atheism as reck is to liberalism imo

make of that what you will

[mingus]

It was an emotional statement you made. And the way you constantly deride/insult my religious beliefs & have over the years, you come off as elitist & arrogant. You’ve always been condescending toward me. Thus the last part of that statement.

You’ve made that bed for yourself with your condescension, derision, arrogance & elitism over time.

You can quit pretending you haven’t been that.

[mingus]

God "experiences" are the result of emotional/psychological manipulation. I once thought God revealed himself to me too...but I realized that was me wanting it to be real more than it being real. Getting into churches and around like minded people who also had "experiences" only made me believe it more. It was only after I started doing some research did I realize that most of what I believed was made up by people.

I do think there is something out there, but I don't have a clue what it is or how it works. But one thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic religions. He's a little too hippie for me, but I do like a lot of the stuff Alan Watts has to say about spirituality.

Obviously, I disagree. There is definitely for some (or a lot) of people an emotional/psychological aspect. But, for others, it’s more than that.

I don’t know what is or isn’t true in terms of everything in the Bible.

There, really, are only a couple things I do know. Actually know.

1. There is a God & He’s the God of the Jews & Christians.
2. Jews were the Chosen People

[spurraider21]

Obviously, I disagree. There is definitely for some (or a lot) of people an emotional/psychological aspect. But, for others, it’s more than that.

I don’t know what is or isn’t true in terms of everything in the Bible.

There, really, are only a couple things I do know. Actually know.

1. There is a God & He’s the God of the Jews & Christians.
2. Jews were the Chosen People
i think "know" is a strong word here

devoutly believe?

[Blake]

blake is to atheism as reck is to liberalism imo

make of that what you will

Meh. I don't know if there's a deity out there or not. I just know it's not bible god.

[Blake]

It was an emotional statement you made. And the way you constantly deride/insult my religious beliefs & have over the years, you come off as elitist & arrogant. You’ve always been condescending toward me. Thus the last part of that statement.

You’ve made that bed for yourself with your condescension, derision, arrogance & elitism over time.

You can quit pretending you haven’t been that.

Poor you. Shame on me.

[spurraider21]

Meh. I don't know if there's a deity out there or not. I just know it's not bible god.
you're a jerk about it tbh. incessantly.

[Blake]

you're a jerk about it tbh. incessantly.

I know who I'm being a jerk to. Thx.

I have little patience for retarded arrogance.

[spurraider21]

I know who I'm being a jerk to. Thx.
everyone?

[Blake]

everyone?

Have I been a jerk to you?

[mingus]

i think "know" is a strong word here

devoutly believe?

Like I said, there are two things I know.

1. That there is a God, & it’s the God of Jews & Christians.
2. Jews were the Chosen People.

I don’t just devoutly believe that. I know it.

Everyone will, at some point in their lives, come to this same knowledge. I guess you can say I know that, too.

[mingus]

Poor you. Shame on me.

Doesn’t bother me. Your name calling says more about you than it does me.

[Chucho]

Awesome last page or so. Said it yesterday, the people who try soooo hard not to take Ls are taking loads this week.

[Blake]

Doesn’t bother me. Your name calling says more about you than it does me.

What does you name calling say about you, Christian?

[spurraider21]

Like I said, there are two things I know.

1. That there is a God, & it’s the God of Jews & Christians.
2. Jews were the Chosen People.

I don’t just devoutly believe that. I know it.

Everyone will, at some point in their lives, come to this same knowledge. I guess you can say I know that, too.
can you explain how you know it?

or what has gotten you from "devout belief" to "knowing" it

[spurraider21]

Awesome last page or so. Said it yesterday, the people who try soooo hard not to take Ls are taking loads this week.
inevitably devolves into this when blake has the most posts in a thread

[Blake]

Like I said, there are two things I know.

1. That there is a God, & it’s the God of Jews & Christians.
2. Jews were the Chosen People.

I don’t just devoutly believe that. I know it.

Everyone will, at some point in their lives, come to this same knowledge. I guess you can say I know that, too.

So you are certain that Hebrew law is God's law?

[spurraider21]

Have I been a jerk to you?
when you bog down a thread with an otherwise meaningful discussion into "lol ur stupid for believing in god" then you're being a jerk to the forum

[Chucho]

inevitably devolves into this when blake has the most posts in a thread


Yeah, showing you're selective about your hatred and intolerance is a major L before everyone else starts shitting Ls all over you.

[Blake]

inevitably devolves into this when blake has the most posts in a thread

Good one, jerk.

[Blake]

when you bog down a thread with an otherwise meaningful discussion into "lol ur stupid for believing in god" then you're being a jerk to the forum

Lol meaningful discussion.

Check thread title, jerk. You bogged down my thread with astrophysics crap nobody asked for.

[ElNono]

Evolution as a means to existence is nothing but faith, bro. Deifying it while writing off creationism is the ultimate in intellectual laziness and dogma.

Then you have no idea what the theory of Evolution is. That's an education problem, not a faith or dogma problem.

[Chucho]

:lol

[spurraider21]

Good one, jerk.


Lol meaningful discussion.

Check thread title, jerk.


Lol angry

[Spurminator]

I feel like Derptacular is on a mission to be on the wrong side of every argument. Is it for the attention?

[Blake]

when you bog down a thread with an otherwise meaningful discussion into "lol ur stupid for believing in god" then you're being a jerk to the forum

Stop bogging down my thread, jerk.

[spurraider21]

Stop bogging down my thread, jerk.
:lol my thread

now everybody needs your permission before submitting a post?

the discussion moved on because a story about a car accident wasn't interesting. its why you don't have a single post about it since the OP. and you have gone and shifted it to yet another boring pissing contest that you've been in hundreds of times. such interesting

[Chucho]

:lol my thread

now everybody needs your permission before submitting a post?

the discussion moved on because a story about a car accident wasn't interesting. its why you don't have a single post about it since the OP. and you have gone and shifted it to yet another boring pissing contest that you've been in hundreds of times. such interesting


:lmao

[mingus]

can you explain how you know it?

or what has gotten you from "devout belief" to "knowing" it

Because I disobeyed God. God punished me.

Do you know what “Israel” means?

It means “struggle with God”

Those that struggle with God the most, get to know God the most.

[Spurtacular]

Are you a scientist?

Nope. But if I were, I wouldn't make hasty revelations to quell my bias.

[spurraider21]

Because I disobeyed God. God punished me.
and there are no other possible explanations of what went down other than "the very god as described in the bible actively punished me?"

i'm legitimately curious... if you dont want to post it here but are more comfortable via pm, that would be cool


Do you know what “Israel” means?

It means “struggle with God”

Those that struggle with God the most, get to know God the most.
you can see how that statement on its own doesn't evidence anything, right? you are just stating your belief. it would be the equivalent of me saying "its all fake/wrong." that itself doesn't evidence whether or not it is fake/wrong.

[spurraider21]

Nope. But if I were, I wouldn't make hasty revelations to quell my bias.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/a3c4be0308792d8bdaedec75c4ebdc71/tenor.gif?itemid=3613444

[Spurtacular]

Then you have no idea what the theory of Evolution is. That's an education problem, not a faith or dogma problem.

I know what it is. And I know that it is not an absolute truth. If you think so, then you're going on faith.

[Pavlov]

I know what it is. And I know that it is not an absolute truth. If you think so, then you're going on faith.What is the scientific basis for creationism?

[spurraider21]

I know what it is. And I know that it is not an absolute truth. If you think so, then you're going on faith.
incredibly unlikely and bordering on impossible given your posts in this thread so far

[mingus]

I realize that. But it’s true. It’s been true for me anyway.

A lot of stuff has happened in my life. It’s not just one single event.

Having the answer as to whether God exists or not isn’t important for all of us. If you want to pm me then feel free to. But, the way I see it is, you’ll find out for yourself one day. And it won’t be because of me. It will because God wants you to know.

[Spurtacular]

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific method.

The theory of evolution was able to be developed only because the available evidence led to the conclusion that species have changed over time. The reason evolution is still a working theory hundreds of years later is because even in the present, after many discoveries and emergence of new new evidence (most significantly, genetics) it’s the only theory we have that is consistent with the entire body of evidence.

That's a sweeping "conclusion" that half asses the scientific method at best. Evolution and creationism are both theories having merit. If you embrace one and denounce the other, you are doing it on faith. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

[baseline bum]

That's a sweeping "conclusion" that half asses the scientific method at best. Evolution and creationism are both theories having merit. If you embrace one and denounce the other, you are doing it on faith. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Should the theory that you molest kids still be taught in science class too?

[SpursforSix]

Nope. But if I were, I wouldn't make hasty revelations to quell my bias.


https://media1.tenor.com/images/a3c4be0308792d8bdaedec75c4ebdc71/tenor.gif?itemid=3613444

:lol

But for real...I understand all of these words on their own. But not the sentence itself.

[spurraider21]

I realize that. But it’s true. It’s been true for me anyway.
i have no idea what that means. it's either a truth or it isn't. the sky isn't blue "for me." it's just blue. unless you're colorblind. and even then, you can observe the wavelength of light absored/reflected and determine its in that part of the spectrum. it can be objectively, neutrally verified. what's "true for me" or "true for you" doesn't fit that description


A lot of stuff has happened in my life. It’s not just one single event.

Having the answer as to whether God exists or not isn’t important for all of us. If you want to pm me then feel free to.
it's clearly important enough to you, as you have already come to that determination. and yes, if a god that judges us for eternity exists, that's a pretty important development :lol

curious to know how you know that the existence of the biblical god is the only explanation consistent with your experience

[Spurtacular]

What is the scientific basis for creationism?

Essentially it's the whole gamut of science. The more one learns about the exquisite and delicate computations that enable life as we know it, the more silly it becomes to consider this to be such a ridiculously unlikely happenstance.

[spurraider21]

That's a sweeping "conclusion" that half asses the scientific method at best. Evolution and creationism are both theories having merit. If you embrace one and denounce the other, you are doing it on faith. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
you've been asked to spit out some scientific basis for creationism and haven't stepped up to the plate.

evolution is a product of the scientific method, because it only existed as a theory as a result of evidence and discovery. creationism isn't a product of the scientific method because it is not derived from evidence, but rather, holy texts.

[SpursforSix]

Essentially it's the whole gamut of science. The more one learns about the exquisite and delicate computations that enable life as we know it, the more silly it becomes to consider this to be such a ridiculously unlikely happenstance.

:lol

Ok...I get it.

[spurraider21]

Essentially it's the whole gamut of science. The more one learns about the exquisite and delicate computations that enable life as we know it, the more silly it becomes to consider this to be such a ridiculously unlikely happenstance.
take a die and roll it 10 times. record your results.

the odds of you rolling that sequence was 1 in 60,466,176

does that mean a god must have stepped in and controlled the die? because thats pretty fuckin improbable

[mingus]

It isn’t the only possible explanation but it’s by far the most logical one.

With that knowledge, comes a lot of responsibility. God didn’t for whatever reason want you to have that responsibility. So I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

[Avante]

Same old crap, YES.....the Bible is a load of bullshit, that doesn't mean we didn't have a Designer. HE/IT/THEY....might have gone the evolution route. Anyone thinking this all just happened, DNA doesn't just happen, is stupid.

[spurraider21]

It isn’t the only possible explanation but it’s by far the most logical one.
its a pretty big ask for me to just take your word on that tbh, surely you understand. at least without knowing the story


With that knowledge, comes a lot of responsibility. God didn’t for whatever reason want you to have that responsibility. So I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
huh. trust me, i have special knowledge/enlightenment, you wouldn't understand. where have i seen that before?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_sF72ofj5U

again, this isn't me necessarily saying "you're wrong and i know you're wrong" (though i do have my opinions), but rather am pointing out that it hasn't been supported in any meaningful way

[Pavlov]

Essentially it's the whole gamut of science. The more one learns about the exquisite and delicate computations that enable life as we know it, the more silly it becomes to consider this to be such a ridiculously unlikely happenstance.That's not a scientific basis of creationism. That's an argument for giving up on science out of laziness.

What is the scientific basis of creationism?

[spurraider21]

What is the scientific basis of creationism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

[RandomGuy]

God "experiences" are the result of emotional/psychological manipulation. I once thought God revealed himself to me too...but I realized that was me wanting it to be real more than it being real. Getting into churches and around like minded people who also had "experiences" only made me believe it more. It was only after I started doing some research did I realize that most of what I believed was made up by people.

I do think there is something out there, but I don't have a clue what it is or how it works. But one thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic religions. He's a little too hippie for me, but I do like a lot of the stuff Alan Watts has to say about spirituality.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/#.Wr0_Hy7waM8


For his final trick, Epley looked at the brains of recruits as they in turn attempted to peer into the mind of God. While sitting in an fMRI scanner, 17 people had to state how they, God or an average American would feel on a list of social issues, including universal health care, stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion, sex education and more. As before, their answers revealed a closer match between their beliefs and those they ascribed to God, than those they credited to the average Joe or Jill.

The brain scans found the same thing, particularly in a region called the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) that’s been linked to self-referential thinking. The mPFC is more active when we think about our own mindsets than those of others. Epley found that it was similarly abuzz when the recruits thought about their own attitude or God’s, but lower when they considered the average American. The three images below show the differences in brain activity between the three tasks and you can see that the ‘God’ and ‘self’ scans had little to distinguish them.

"God" always end up wanting the exact things, and thinking the exact things that people who believe in him believe themselves.

Same areas of the brain light up when people consider "I think X" and "God thinks X".

That says it all for me.

[RandomGuy]

Obviously, I disagree. There is definitely for some (or a lot) of people an emotional/psychological aspect. But, for others, it’s more than that.

I don’t know what is or isn’t true in terms of everything in the Bible.

There, really, are only a couple things I do know. Actually know.

1. There is a God & He’s the God of the Jews & Christians.
2. Jews were the Chosen People

That is a big burden of proof you take on.

How do you know?

[RandomGuy]

It all really comes down to the scientific method, and where the burden of proof lies...

In science you can attribute behavior you don't understand to anything, but then the burden of proof is on you to support it and your peers to bring it down. That synergy is what creates knowledge. We're not talking opinions or faith, but actual tangible, testable, observable behavior.

That's why creationism and other faith or dogma based theories are really intellectually lazy, since once you attributed it to the deity of your choosing, and since such deity is not actually tangible, testable nor observable, the scientific method can no longer be achieved, and, as such it's not science.

It's lazy because once it's attributed to the imaginary guy, the process ends. There's nothing to support or debunk, since it's not testable. IOW, from a scientific standpoint, worthless. It doesn't advance the sciences or knowledge, it doesn't promote advancing the sciences or knowledge. Just junk.

(That's not to say that scientists can't be religious people themselves, which is a completely different topic).

In short:

Faith is the death of reason.

[Avante]

That is a big burden of proof you take on.

How do you know?

Prove that isn't true, 100% proof.

[mingus]

its a pretty big ask for me to just take your word on that tbh, surely you understand. at least without knowing the story


huh. trust me, i have special knowledge/enlightenment, you wouldn't understand. where have i seen that before?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_sF72ofj5U

again, this isn't me necessarily saying "you're wrong and i know you're wrong" (though i do have my opinions), but rather am pointing out that it hasn't been supported in any meaningful way

”meaningful” as in has it been vetted via the scientific method? No. If that’s the only means, you believe, by which knowledge can be acquired, then I will respectfully disagree. And it’s why I wouldn’t even bother going into my life story with you or anyone who believes that that is the only way by which we can come to knowledge. If we disagree on basic ideas of knowledge acquisition, it’s going to end, most likely, just how it started. Which is w/ you & me not coming to any consensus. Unless I can convince you that there are other forms of knowledge acquisition. Which, I believe, is actually possible. It’s just a question of trust. I don’t know you.

And I’m not asking you or anyone to take my word for it. I don’t proselytize.

[Avante]

”meaningful” as in has it been vetted via the scientific method? No. If that’s the only means, you believe, by which knowledge can be acquired, then I will respectfully disagree. And it’s why I wouldn’t even bother going into my life story with you or anyone who believes that that is the only way by which we can come to knowledge. If we disagree on basic ideas of knowledge acquisition, it’s going to end, most likely, just how it started. Which is w/ you & me not coming to any consensus. Unless I can convince you that there are other forms of knowledge acquisition. Which, I believe, is actually possible. It’s just a question of trust. I don’t know you.

And I’m not asking you or anyone to take my word for it. I don’t proselytize.

Right here is what I'm talking about, look at how relaxed and knowing mingus is compared to all these......oh yeah well prove it. This has been my experience, those with their God far better off than all those non believers.

[Blake]

:lol my thread

now everybody needs your permission before submitting a post?

No, jerk. I was being sarcastic; making fun of you for lecturing me how I should post in my thread.

[Blake]

inevitably devolves into this when blake has the most posts in a thread


Who Posted?

spurraider21 Posts 38

Blake Posts 37

[rmt]

In short:

Faith is the death of reason.

Isaac Newton had faith in God - do you think he didn't reason?

[Blake]

Isaac Newton had faith in God - do you think he didn't reason?

The ol' "yeah but this smart guy over here believes in God"

[mingus]

That is a big burden of proof you take on.

How do you know?

Firstly, as I told Spurraider, I don’t proselytize. I understand that, especially in the age we live in, forms of knowledge acquisition not consistent with modern science don’t hold much weight. I understand & respect that. It’s why it’s not really worth my time & effort to change that unless I see that someone really wants to know & it’s someone I respect & who respects me.

[rmt]

The ol' "yeah but this smart guy over here believes in God"

I'm not the one who made such a blanket statement.

[Avante]

Firstly, as I told Spurraider, I don’t proselytize. I understand that, especially in the age we live in, forms of knowledge acquisition not consistent with modern science don’t hold much weight. I understand & respect that. It’s why it’s not really worth my time & effort to change that unless I see that someone really wants to know & it’s someone I respect & who respects me.

There it is, the believer on a whole higher level than all those....oh yeah well......gotta love it.

Who could possibilty care what others believe in? This is some big deal, why?

UNLESS......somebody is trying to bug you with their beliefs.

[benefactor]

1. There is a God & He’s the God of the Jews & Christians.
2. Jews were the Chosen People
The rub here is that Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah and they don't believe in eternal Hell. These are pretty big deal breakers from the Christian perspective

[Blake]

I'm not the one who made such a blanket statement.

That's exactly your argument.

[Blake]

The rub here is that Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah and they don't believe in eternal Hell. These are pretty big deal breakers from the Christian perspective

Jews no longer the chosen people :depressed

[mingus]

In short:

Faith is the death of reason.

What if you know, though?

Wouldn’t that just be a more enlightened reason?

A reason that is blinding to those who don’t believe (or know, as I do) since it masquerades as superstition. Blinding to those living blissfully ignorant of a higher reason.

Faith is is the death of reason—to you.

But it let me give you an example of where it isn’t—to me.

Say you & me were somewhere & a guy comes up to both of us & says one of you is going to get murdered. Not just murdered, but tortured in the most inhumane way.

What would your response be?

I’d tell you what mine would be.

I’d tell him to go ahead & do it to me. And I’d subject myself to it with a smile on my face.

You wouldn’t understand.

Faith is what you describe it as. Knowledge is what I describe it as. And that knowledge gives me absolutely no fear of anything—other than not adding to what is Good, protecting what is Good & eliminating all Evil.

[mingus]

The rub here is that Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah and they don't believe in eternal Hell. These are pretty big deal breakers from the Christian perspective

The God of the Jews spoke to me.

I believe in Jesus. But I don’t know like I do the God of the Jews. That’s a leap of faith for me. Actually, I won’t say it’s a leap of faith. I just say “Judeo-Christian” God. It’s that God.

[RandomGuy]

Firstly, as I told Spurraider, I don’t proselytize. I understand that, especially in the age we live in, forms of knowledge acquisition not consistent with modern science don’t hold much weight. I understand & respect that. It’s why it’s not really worth my time & effort to change that unless I see that someone really wants to know & it’s someone I respect & who respects me.

There is a good reason that things that aren't consistent with modern science don't hold much weight. Science works. Not perfectly, but it is better than anything else we have tried.

I seem to remember going back and forth on this before with you though. If memory serves it was a fairly respectful even-keeled discussion.

Not asking for proselytization, just reasoning.

"personal experience" is the usual thing, if one doesn't use a holy book as primary justification.

[Avante]

The God of the Jews spoke to me.

mingus, why are you bothering with this? All those disagreeing with you won't be changing their minds. You seem above this silliness.

You will never read.....ok, I;ve changed my mind.....on the internet.

[RandomGuy]

What if you know, though?

Wouldn’t that just be a more enlightened reason?

A reason that is blinding to those who don’t believe (or know, as I do) since it masquerades as superstition. Blinding to those living blissfully ignorant of a higher reason.

Faith is is the death of reason—to you.

But it let me give you an example of where it isn’t—to me.

Say you & me were somewhere & a guy comes up to both of us & says one of you is going to get murdered. Not just murdered, but tortured in the most inhumane way.

What would your response be?

I’d tell you what mine would be.

I’d tell him to go ahead & do it to me. And I’d subject myself to it with a smile on my face.

You wouldn’t understand.

Faith is what you describe it as. Knowledge is what I describe it as. And that knowledge gives me absolutely no fear of anything—other than not adding to what is Good, protecting what is Good & eliminating all Evil.

I understand a lot better than you think here.

God the Jews is demonstrably evil.

Not something I would worship, even if it existed.

While I would not be willing to say that "there is no chance that ANY God exists" I can definitively say that "Bible God" doesn't, especially as it is described.

The easiest, low haning fruit is the "Omni"s. Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omipotent.

The latter two are logical contradictions, and the first, well, look a the world.

[Blake]

Say you & me were somewhere & a guy comes up to both of us & says one of you is going to get murdered. Not just murdered, but tortured in the most inhumane way.

What would your response be?

I’d tell you what mine would be.

I’d tell him to go ahead & do it to me. And I’d subject myself to it with a smile on my face.

said while kicking back on spurs talk carrying a gun in his nice house because he makes [what was it. .] $60,000 a month?

Too much :lol

[RandomGuy]

The God of the Jews spoke to me.

I believe in Jesus. But I don’t know like I do the God of the Jews. That’s a leap of faith for me. Actually, I won’t say it’s a leap of faith. I just say “Judeo-Christian” God. It’s that God.

How do you, how can you, know you aren't deluding yourself?

People talk to all sorts of beings all the time who aren't there.

Are they telling the truth too? Is Elvis secretly sending messages in pancakes about fish?

[mingus]

I understand a lot better than you think here.

God the Jews is demonstrably evil.

Not something I would worship, even if it existed.

While I would not be willing to say that "there is no chance that ANY God exists" I can definitively say that "Bible God" doesn't, especially as it is described.

The easiest, low haning fruit is the "Omni"s. Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omipotent.

The latter two are logical contradictions, and the first, well, look a the world.

The Bible is imperfect. I don’t know all that He did/didn’t do.

[mingus]

said while kicking back on spurs talk carrying a gun in his nice house because he makes [what was it. .] $60,000 a month?

Too much :lol

I’d do it for you, too, brother.

[RandomGuy]

mingus, why are you bothering with this? All those disagreeing with you won't be changing their minds. You seem above this silliness.

You will never read.....ok, I;ve changed my mind.....on the internet.

If he is right about the nature of the universe, wouldn't it be a moral duty to tell others?

[Blake]

The Bible is imperfect.

And now you just shit yourself to boot.

[Blake]

I’d do it for you, too, brother.

Lol no you won't, tough guy.

[mingus]

How do you, how can you, know you aren't deluding yourself?

People talk to all sorts of beings all the time who aren't there.

Are they telling the truth too? Is Elvis secretly sending messages in pancakes about fish?

LOL Elvis

I’m not deluding myself. If you knew my story & were put in my same shoes, you know just as I do.

[RandomGuy]

The Bible is imperfect. I don’t know all that He did/didn’t do.

The Bible as more than enough in it to say pretty definitively that Bible God is evil. Do I have to know everything to be able to make this determination? Is Pol Pot any less evil if I don't know he was nice to his cat?

After exterminating all humans once or twice, or having the bizarrely evil concept of original sin, it is hard to think what things would mitigate that.

[mingus]

Lol no you won't, tough guy.

Does it bother you that I would be tortured for you & you only spit insults at me?

[RandomGuy]

LOL Elvis

I’m not deluding myself. If you knew my story & were put in my same shoes, you know just as I do.

No, not really.

I understand the human brain, and its fallibility too much. We want to believe, so we think of reasons to do so.

Humans have an almost unlimited talent for self-deception, and twist themselves in knots to maintain delusions.

[Blake]

Does it bother you that I would be tortured for you & you only spit insults at me?

No, I'm laughing at you claiming you'd allow yourself to be tortured with a smile on your face.

You'd be crying with piss running down your leg, pussy.

[mingus]

The Bible as more than enough in it to say pretty definitively that Bible God is evil. Do I have to know everything to be able to make this determination? Is Pol Pot any less evil if I don't know he was nice to his cat?

After exterminating all humans once or twice, or having the bizarrely evil concept of original sin, it is hard to think what things would mitigate that.

As I said before I can’t tell you what all isn’t true & is true in the Bible, or whether those are accurate portrayals of Him all the time. Humans wrote the Bible. It’s imperfect.

[mingus]

No, I'm laughing at you claiming you'd allow yourself to be tortured with a smile on your face.

You'd be crying with piss running down your leg, pussy.

No I wouldn’t. I have no fear of Evil.

[Blake]

As I said before I can’t tell you what all isn’t true & is true in the Bible, or whether those are accurate portrayals of Him all the time. Humans wrote the Bible. It’s imperfect.

Then God did a shitty job at finding writers to convey his message.

[Avante]

If he is right about the nature of the universe, wouldn't it be a moral duty to tell others?

Why?

[Blake]

No I wouldn’t. I have no fear of Evil.

Bwaahaaaaaaaaahaha

[RandomGuy]

As I said before I can’t tell you what all isn’t true & is true in the Bible, or whether those are accurate portrayals of Him all the time. Humans wrote the Bible. It’s imperfect.

So how do you know *your* God is the God of the Jews?

[RandomGuy]

If he is right about the nature of the universe, wouldn't it be a moral duty to tell others?


Why?

Why do you think? Stretch yourself a little here. Answer your own question, if you can.

[mingus]

No, not really.

I understand the human brain, and its fallibility too much. We want to believe, so we think of reasons to do so.

Humans have an almost unlimited talent for self-deception, and twist themselves in knots to maintain delusions.

I understand the human brain, too. I understand it very, very well.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[Avante]

If he is right about the nature of the universe, wouldn't it be a moral duty to tell others?



Why do you think? Stretch yourself a little here. Answer your own question, if you can.

Dude, I'm not the one thinking anybody knows the answer to all this. Who would listen to anyone who said they did, well? You really didn't see this?

[mingus]

Bwaahaaaaaaaaahaha

Why do you insist on projecting what you might do (piss your pants, scream like a lil baby etc.) onto me?

[mingus]

If he is right about the nature of the universe, wouldn't it be a moral duty to tell others?



Why do you think? Stretch yourself a little here. Answer your own question, if you can.

It’s a moral duty if someone wants to know & has the right reasons for wanting to know. IOW, if it’s not for the sake of argumentation.

[Avante]

It’s a moral duty if someone wants to know & has the right reasons for wanting to know. IOW, if it’s not for the sake of argumentation.

How many people do yu think would see you as having the answer?

[Blake]

Why do you insist on projecting what you might do (piss your pants, scream like a lil baby etc.) onto me?

No, that line doesn't work.

If you want to prove your a bad ass, that's all on you. Go for it and let's see what you got.

[Blake]

How many people do yu think would see you as having the answer?

Not the nearly 2 billion Muslims

[mingus]

No, that line doesn't work.

If you want to prove your a bad ass, that's all on you. Go for it and let's see what you got.

You are putting words in my mouth. I don’t need to prove anything. Me giving that example is not me trying to show that I’m a badass. If you read it that way, then you miss the point entirely.

[koriwhat]

don't worry about blake... he thinks i'm a druggy and doesn't believe a higher power exists.

[spurraider21]

”meaningful” as in has it been vetted via the scientific method? No. If that’s the only means, you believe, by which knowledge can be acquired, then I will respectfully disagree. And it’s why I wouldn’t even bother going into my life story with you or anyone who believes that that is the only way by which we can come to knowledge. If we disagree on basic ideas of knowledge acquisition, it’s going to end, most likely, just how it started. Which is w/ you & me not coming to any consensus. Unless I can convince you that there are other forms of knowledge acquisition. Which, I believe, is actually possible. It’s just a question of trust. I don’t know you.

And I’m not asking you or anyone to take my word for it. I don’t proselytize.
i'm not asking you to convert me. you said you "know" those things. i'm asking how you know out of curiosity, not out of a desire to be preached at

[spurraider21]

What if you know, though?

Wouldn’t that just be a more enlightened reason?
no, because humans are fallible.

if an insane person "knows" that a bird is talking to them, that doesn't mean he has reached enlightenment and only he knows the truth of the magical bird.

thus, on an individual level, its difficult to know if what you know is real or not. this is why we look to things that can be objectively verified. like a measurement. you give two people the same ruler and tell them to measure a 5 inch object, they'll both find that it is 5 inches (assuming they know how to use a ruler). if one of them says "for me, it is 8 inches, and my knowledge of this means i have reached enlightenment," that wouldn't work

also yes, penis measurement joke incoming

[mingus]

How many people do yu think would see you as having the answer?

Everybody.

[mingus]

no, because humans are fallible.

if an insane person "knows" that a bird is talking to them, that doesn't mean he has reached enlightenment and only he knows the truth of the magical bird.

thus, on an individual level, its difficult to know if what you know is real or not. this is why we look to things that can be objectively verified. like a measurement. you give two people the same ruler and tell them to measure a 5 inch object, they'll both find that it is 5 inches (assuming they know how to use a ruler). if one of them says "for me, it is 8 inches, and my knowledge of this means i have reached enlightenment," that wouldn't work

also yes, penis measurement joke incoming

It’s not that difficult to say you know, actually. Not for me, anyway.

[spurraider21]

It’s not that difficult to say you know, actually. Not for me, anyway.
its easy for the crazy man to know the bird is talking

[mingus]

its easy for the crazy man to know the bird is talking

So IOW, I’m crazy. Even though you have no way of knowing that. Okay.

[spurraider21]

So IOW, I’m crazy. Even though you have no way of knowing that. Okay.
no, you're putting words in my mouth

[spurraider21]

it was in response to this line of discussion


What if you know, though?

Wouldn’t that just be a more enlightened reason?


no, because humans are fallible.

if an insane person "knows" that a bird is talking to them, that doesn't mean he has reached enlightenment and only he knows the truth of the magical bird.

thus, on an individual level, its difficult to know if what you know is real or not. this is why we look to things that can be objectively verified. like a measurement. you give two people the same ruler and tell them to measure a 5 inch object, they'll both find that it is 5 inches (assuming they know how to use a ruler). if one of them says "for me, it is 8 inches, and my knowledge of this means i have reached enlightenment," that wouldn't work

also yes, penis measurement joke incoming


It’s not that difficult to say you know, actually. Not for me, anyway.

saying "i know because i know" is by definition circular. im asking how you know, and you're response to this point has been "i just do." it's not useful

[Blake]

don't worry about blake... he thinks i'm a druggy and doesn't believe a higher power exists.

You use psychedelics and say you've seen "The Light" while doing so. You very literally said those words.

[mingus]

it was in response to this line of discussion







saying "i know because i know" is by definition circular. im asking how you know, and you're response to this point has been "i just do." it's not useful


You’re missing a very key statement that I made in all of that. I have no obligation to tell you how I know.

[Blake]

You are putting words in my mouth. I don’t need to prove anything. Me giving that example is not me trying to show that I’m a badass. If you read it that way, then you miss the point entirely.

It's your claim that you'd have a smile on your face while being inhumanely tortured. Those are literally your words.

I know you can never back up that claim. It's stupid.

[spurraider21]

I have no obligation to tell you how I know.

well yeah, but...


I’m not ashamed of His words. I’ve my reasons for not revealing them on this board. If you want to pm me, then I’d be happy to share my experiences with you so long as you can show me a modicum of respect.


and there are no other possible explanations of what went down other than "the very god as described in the bible actively punished me?"

i'm legitimately curious... if you dont want to post it here but are more comfortable via pm, that would be cool

just reeks of evasion

[koriwhat]

You use psychedelics and say you've seen "The Light" while doing so. You very literally said those words.

and? that makes me a druggy huh? like i said before, my def and yours are polar opposites. i still hold firm that you talk out your ass on most things and this is definitely a subject you know absolutely nothing about but pretend to.

[RandomGuy]

Humans have an almost unlimited talent for self-deception, and twist themselves in knots to maintain delusions.


I understand the human brain, too. I understand it very, very well.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Disagree on what? Humans can be delusional, and think of reasons to self-deceive in order to maintain their delusions?

I am not saying you are delusional, 100% about talking to some "God".

Problem is that you aren't the only person claiming that. People claim that kind of thing all the time, and the accounts actively contradict each other. SOMEBODY has to be delusional, and sorting out who/what is, is more time than I have on the planet.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, I'm not the one thinking anybody knows the answer to all this. Who would listen to anyone who said they did, well? You really didn't see this?

Or don't stretch yourself. Whatever. I don't expect much from you when it comes to reasoning or critical thinking. Sokay. You do you man, and that just doesn't involve thinking/reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

So IOW, I’m crazy. Even though you have no way of knowing that. Okay.

He's saying that there is no difference to the rest of us. Two people "know" things that no one else can see or hear.

If there is some deity out there, it could do a lot better than talking to a few isolated individuals here and there, and being indistinguishable from crazy people, IF it gave a shit.

Either it doesn't give a shit, or it doesn't exist. Both have the same effect on what I should believe.

[Spurtacular]

take a die and roll it 10 times. record your results.

the odds of you rolling that sequence was 1 in 60,466,176

does that mean a god must have stepped in and controlled the die? because thats pretty fuckin improbable

Not sure how you think this is even applicable.

[Spurtacular]

That's not a scientific basis of creationism. That's an argument for giving up on science out of laziness.

What is the scientific basis of creationism?

#FullRetard

[Pavlov]

#FullRetardYou didn't answer the question.

What is the scientific basis of creationism?

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer the question.

What is the scientific basis of creationism?

Been answered, dickhead.

[Pavlov]

Been answered, dickhead.Actually, it hasn't.

You described your personal incredulity that it could be anything but creationism.

That isn't science.

What is the scientific basis of creationism?

[ElNono]

I know what it is. And I know that it is not an absolute truth. If you think so, then you're going on faith.

Not at all, while the entire theory isn't at this time entirely testable, good portions of it are.

Dogma requires, per se, a non-testable leap of faith. That's not science, and that's not the theory of evolution either.