My Community
General => The REST Room => Topic started by: Momo on May 30, 2012, 07:41:38 PM
-
If anybody is interested enough to get through the link I am putting up, I'd be very happy to read your thoughts on it.
The arrogance of being thick as a brick. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMAt0a5EWw0&feature=g-vrec)
Personally I thought it was a wee bit aggressive, but true.
-
I'm with Darwin/Wallace and the likes of Dawkins.
-
The Ten Commandments. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F3VGtTk1HY&feature=related)
Amendments to rule book.
-
I thought Dark Matter would be mentioned in the OP. Dark Matter is very cool 8)
-
Athiests always seem to be pretty aggressive, but I guess they're pretty passionate about what other people think. Religious folk that try to convert you annoy me just as much. He makes some very fair points about the humility of science.
Live and let live is what I think. It's a very comfortable fence I sit on. :P Science fascinates me, although I was never any good at it at school!
The Christopher Hitchens video is good, what a wonderful orator he was. Can't stand his brother, mind.
-
Athiests always seem to be pretty aggressive, but I guess they're pretty passionate about what other people think.
I don't recall a group of atheists ever starting a war over atheism, or start a terrorist group because they weren't happy with bunch of atheists who might just have a different view of atheism.
On the other hand history is littered with wars fought over religion. Christiantiy tried to convert the world to Christianity. "Hey guys, let's have a little crusade". "hmm, look at all these natives in Africa/South America/wherever, they could do with a good dose of Christianity"."You damn protestants". "you damn Catholics". "Our rules are better than your rules". "our God is better than your God".
Just for the record, if any of these Gods actually existed, Buddha would kick their behinds. Have you seen how much weight that guy is packing, but then again it's the only religion where he's likely to go "you know what guys, you just have your little God war and have a nice day, I'll sit here and meditate while you do". Which probably explains his weight problem, he could have done with a little more fighting and a bit less meditating to shift some of that fat".
Most atheists don't give a rats arse about what other people think and are quite happy for them to believe what they want to believe. Richard Dawkins, as a prime example, has never threatened anyone, never wished anyone dead because of their beliefs. His passion isn't agression. On the other hand he has been threatened by religious nuts opposed to his views, not to mention numerous well wishers expressing the hope that he drops dead.
Religion has no scientific basis, it's much easier for those that believe in it to try and debunk evolutionary theory as they don;t feel they need to provide proof for their own beliefs "it just is". Creationists will point to supposed flaws in evolutionary theory, diseregarding the fact that by its very nature science is about theories being proven or disproven and new theories hypothesised as more evidence is found and knowledge expands.
There is irrefutable proof of evolution. Studies of molecular biology, genetics and cladistics have all yielded a wealth of evidence, though unfortunatley because of the nature of organic matter, the passing of time and the effects of Earth's geology, physics and chemistry, there are gaps in evolutionary history, some of which may never be closed. These gaps are waht creationists try and jump on. The claims of creationists and their criticisms of evolutionary science have been refuted thouroughly by numerous evolutionary biologists and scientists. Books by the likes of Mayr, Futuyama and many others have answered the criticisms, but these are rarely read by the wider public unless you are studying the subject of evolution. So it's easy for creationists to make their arguments with people who may not have the full scientific knowledge and only a rudimentary knowledge of evolution, to refute their claims.
A good and very concise book on evolution is "What Evolution is" by Ernst Mayr. I'd recommend it.
-
Athiests always seem to be pretty aggressive, but I guess they're pretty passionate about what other people think.
I don't recall a group of atheists ever starting a war over atheism,
I do.
(http://images.wikia.com/southpark/images/6/62/GoGodGo16.jpg)
-
This might seem aggressive, but I thought is was more a case of Incredulity Overload. ( the caller was a total helmet mind you)
creationist caller
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHJR02Dk1_4&feature=g-vrec)
-
This might seem aggressive, but I thought is was more a case of Incredulity Overload. ( the caller was a total helmet mind you)
creationist caller
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHJR02Dk1_4&feature=g-vrec)
Didn't think it was aggressive myself, I wouldn't mind watching a programme like that regularly. The nearest we get to that sort of entertainment is calls on Talksport every now and then. Gotta love religious nutjobs lol ;D
-
I would not classify the chap as a 'nut job', mibbies a wee bit easily led or slightly delusional.
The world is full of them, which is a bit problematic unfortunately.
-
Anyone that believes that a godhead created the world in 7 days, thinks that Adam and Eve were the very first human beings created by said godhead without them evolving from apes and that a talking snake convinced Eve to munch on an apple is the dictionary definition of the word 'nutjob'. :o
Talking of religious nutjobs, where's styles..? A good Catholic boy should be defending creationism :o :P ;D
-
I have absolutely no problem with people who believe in religion doing so. People are entitled to believe what they want to.
-
Organised religion is the biggest sham around. I can understand individuals wanting to believe there is a higher power who looks after them though. Sometimes it gives people the confidence to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. I'm not going to go around telling them they're wrong/delusional/weak-minded. However, the more argumentative of them should leave science alone.
It is pretty comical when believers try to debunk the theory of evolution, Drags. They think just because it isn't a "law" of science it must been unproven, when laws in science are simply descriptions in the form of mathematical equations. Theories are explanations as to how things work. Think they sometimes get theory and hypothesis confused. :P
-
I have absolutely no problem with people who believe in religion doing so. People are entitled to believe what they want to.
Didn't say that people weren't entitled to believe in what they want to mate. I was just saying that anyone who truly does believe that nonsense I've just described is a nutjob, plain and simple. 8)
-
The big question is does religion deserve respect considering the evidence available?
-
Theories are explanations as to how things work. Think they sometimes get theory and hypothesis confused. :P
A high percentage of theories start out as a hypothesis, with something being observed and with no knowledge of the mechanisms involved, a hypothesis will be formulated to test the observed phenomena. The hypothesis is considered the starting point, the theory the end point (though there's normally the reason someone has come up with the hypothesis in the first place that's the starting point, which could be considered an untested theory, or simply an idea or notion). It's only after the hypothesis has been proven and widely accepted it is really a fully fledged theory. the use of "new theories hypothesised as more evidence is found and knowledge expands" was pointing to the fact that existing theories lead to new hypotheses with additonal knowledge and understanding, and new theories result from these hypotheses, but just worded very badly.
It's the use of theory that is probably most misused as theories have to have undergone testing and been accepted. For example somebody might see somebody else get punched in the head. As a result they might then say to their friend "I have a theory that if I punch you in the head, it's going to hurt". Technically not a theory because it hasn't been tested (though there's a good chance we know it's going to be true so it's our idea or untested theory and starting point). So a hypothesis to test the idea that a punch in the head will hurt can be formulated (normally the null hypothesis that's tested). Once the testing has been completed and results confirm that it does actually hurt. the theory can be accepted. (it's a poor analogy, I know, but it's late and I couldn't think of a better one).
Science is always looking to improve and theories that are widely accepted can also lead to a new hypothesis as scientists look to poke holes in existing theories, possibly as a result of advances in science and new knowledge.
It's this continual re-testing of our sicentific knowledge that allows people such as creationsists to latch on to something and try to debunk it.
A good example of this is Darwin's (and Wallace's) theories on Evolution. At the time they came up with the theory, pretty much in parallel, science wasn't advanced enough to test much of the theory, other than basic examination of skeletal and fossil remains, basic taxonomy and observations of similarities/differences in species. The theory hadn't really undergone much rigorous scientific testing without the ability to fully study genetic information. At that time no genomes had been mapped and methods such as cladistics weren't around either. So new hypotheses have been formulated over time to further test the original theory and clarify it.
Most of what the creationsists try and debunk about evolution is based on Darwin's original theory and the flaws resulting from the lack of additonal knowledge at that time. They latch onto the holes poked in the theory as a result of new knowledge, testing and the work of modern day evolutionary biologists. They can't wait to shout about the flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution that scientists have found but they happily ignore the advances in knowledge and science that have lead to improvements in evolutionary theory. Some still look at this and try and debunk it because scientists continue to try and improve the theory and gain more knowledge.
All the while they totally ignore the fact that there is no scientific evidence to back up their alternate view of the origins of man, no tested hypothesis to allow the theory of God's creation to be accepted. Their acceptance of the existence of God is based purely on their belief that it is true.
-
I'm a devout atheist too thank god ;D ;D
One thing I have learnt though, never discuss religion (or politics) with your friends, it just causes arguments, I just let them get on with it, although I do like talking to jehovahs, they are so funny to argue with.
One thing I hated about living in east London though was the amount of street preachers there were who would actually berate you in public for being a "non believer", you get it shoved down your neck everywhere there, imagine an atheist doing that and telling you not to believe, he'd be shot!!
-
On the Fulham Road, if you're walking from Fulham Broadway direction towards Satmford Bridge, on the right side of the road there always used to be some God botherer with a megaphone preaching all kinds of crazy stuff about how Jesus was coming back and was going to save us amongst other things, oviously there in the hope he was going to attract some converts (some hope, surely he must have known Chelsea supporters are a Godless bunch and we worshipped false Gods anyway).
One Saturday as I walked past him I started a chant of "There's only one Charles Darwin ... ", which quite a few other supporters joined in. ;D
It didn't shut him up though. ???
-
When I first moved to London there were a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses that used to keep on bothering me and my flat mates, both women. Best way to stop female Jehovah's Witnesses from bothering you is to answer the door naked or semi naked. Answered the door in my boxer shorts once and invited them both in and they didn't bother us again lololol ;D
-
When I first moved to London there were a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses that used to keep on bothering me and my flat mates, both women. Best way to stop female Jehovah's Witnesses from bothering you is to answer the door naked or semi naked. Answered the door in my boxer shorts once and invited them both in and they didn't bother us again lololol ;D
I think you in your boxers might have had that effect on all women, not just Jehovah's lol. :P
-
I'm a devout atheist too thank god ;D ;D
One thing I have learnt though, never discuss religion (or politics) with your friends, it just causes arguments, I just let them get on with it, although I do like talking to jehovahs, they are so funny to argue with.
One thing I hated about living in east London though was the amount of street preachers there were who would actually berate you in public for being a "non believer", you get it shoved down your neck everywhere there, imagine an atheist doing that and telling you not to believe, he'd be shot!!
I share that problem! Many of my friends are Muslims or Christians (and I mean HARDCORE Christians!) so discussion on those topics is a no-go otherwise they get really offended. I've always thought of myself as an agnostic just because atheism seems a little dogmatic. Maybe I'm just too moderate. :P
-
When I first moved to London there were a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses that used to keep on bothering me and my flat mates, both women. Best way to stop female Jehovah's Witnesses from bothering you is to answer the door naked or semi naked. Answered the door in my boxer shorts once and invited them both in and they didn't bother us again lololol ;D
I think you in your boxers might have had that effect on all women, not just Jehovah's lol. :P
That's what my flat mates said too :'(
Another extreme method would be to answer the door with an upside down cross painted on your chest and a dead chicken or goat in your hands, and telling them that they're just in time for Black Mass lol ;D
-
Is being an agnostic about keeping an open mind or are they people who are hedging their bets just in case.
I'll keep an open mind about a lot of things such as supernatural phenomena or life on other planets. Althouh extraterrestrial life is something I believe must be out there. with the vastness of space, although it has little more concrete proof at present than the existence of some omnipotent being.
Let's face it, if God exists, he/she/it is not only a non benevolent piddle taking b'stard. What benevolent God would make stuff that tastes good be unhealthy. Taking an agnostic viewpoint for just a second, doughnuts! Damn you to hell, you miserable pee taking git God.
He/she/it is also a hypocrite.
Though shalt not commit adultery and you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife! Oh ho, so it's okay for God to knock up another man's wife and encourage it, his get out clause, well it wasn't my neighbours wife, just some shepherd dumb enough to believe his wife's cock and bull story (virgin my backside). John Terry is obviously just a devout Christian who was (allegedly) taking a leaf out of his God's playbook. Genesis annex 1: Playing away from home and getting a right result.
Then there's the seven deadly sins. Envy eh! Hmm, in commandment number two doesn't God say "for I am a jealous God".
-
Is being an agnostic about keeping an open mind or are they people who are hedging their bets just in case.
Just in case of what? :P
If the "second coming" were to happen, all non-believers would apparently get a second chance to accept God. Otherwise, all of us in this thread are going to hell for eternal suffering! :o (Imagine spending an eternity listening to Harv rave about Nintendo products!)
The Greeks grew out of believing in their gods after making significant advances in the field of science (one of the emperors also banned pagan worship which helped!). Maybe we'll do the same, one day.
-
:'(
Edit: And it's only this console gen and this portable console gen that I've been harping on about Nintendo products. Generally I'm more of a Sony fanboy tbh going by the last portable gen and the last two home console gens. 8)
The Wii was the first Nintendo home console I've bought and the 3DS was the first Nintendo portable console I've bought.
I'm still hoping that Sony are going to see sense and go back to the ridiculously successful business model of both the PS1 and PS2, high spec consoles are never the market leaders and I can't see that changing next gen either. :-\
The PS4, going by the target specs given to developers, is going to be the Gamecube equivalent in terms of power. I really can't see why the decision makers at Sony haven't opted for a console on par or marginally more powerful than the U. This would give them a licence to print money and put Microsoft's plans for the 720's marketshare on the back foot. :-\
Anyway, that's a discussion for the other thread I guess lol ;D
-
I'm still hoping that Sony are going to see sense and go back to the ridiculously successful business model of both the PS1 and PS2, high spec consoles are never the market leaders and I can't see that changing next gen either. :-\
... and City weren't ready to win the title. :P
-
I'm still hoping that Sony are going to see sense and go back to the ridiculously successful business model of both the PS1 and PS2, high spec consoles are never the market leaders and I can't see that changing next gen either. :-\
... and City weren't ready to win the title. :P
Meh, they only won because we threw it away lol :P
-
Is being an agnostic about keeping an open mind or are they people who are hedging their bets just in case.
Just in case of what? :P
If the "second coming" were to happen, all non-believers would apparently get a second chance to accept God. Otherwise, all of us in this thread are going to hell for eternal suffering! :o (Imagine spending an eternity listening to Harv rave about Nintendo products!)
The Greeks grew out of believing in their gods after making significant advances in the field of science (one of the emperors also banned pagan worship which helped!). Maybe we'll do the same, one day.
Pascal's Wager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo&feature=related)is something I would imagine would be attractive to an Agnostic, personally I think it is a real cop-out, although it could possibly be something of a comfort to certain individuals.
Now if there is a God he'll know your covering your own arse, so you're goosed anyway.
Not for me thank you.
To me it seems to be cowardly and a bit obscene to be asked or forced to lie when you're on your death bed.
Harking back to an earlier comment about Atheism being dogmatic, for me it is about as far away from dogma as you can get, lets leave that to the religious organisations, it's the dogma that scares intelligent people away from this superstitious nonsense, which has got to be a good thing surely.
-
You've commented exactly what my thoughts are on that video. lol
If all agnostics really were of that viewpoint then any god would doubtless be aware of it and see it as just as wrong/sinful as actively denouncing him. Possibly moreso as they'd be trying to fool him!
Trying to prove God doesn't exist, to me, is dogmatic. It's impossible to achieve and I just think people are wasting their time by trying to do so. I try to concern myself with more important things in life than worrying about the various deities people believe in. :P Although, if Ganesh really did exist, that'd be pretty funny.
-
Trying to prove God doesn't exist, to me, is dogmatic. It's impossible to achieve and I just think people are wasting their time by trying to do so.
The onus is on the religious fraternity to prove that their God does exist but they have no evidence whatsoever to back up the existence of this omnipotent being. It shouldn't be on those who don't believe to prove he doesn't exist because there is absolutely no need to do so because of the complete lack of proof of God's existence in the first place.
I don't believe that most atheists do try to prove that God doesn't exist. I don't know any who take that approach. I'd rather ask for the proof that he does. None is ever forthcoming.
Instead those who believe question such things as evolution by trying to use the fact that science does try and prove hypotheses and theories, and then continually questions them, to try and claim theories on evolution are wrong, yet completely ignore a plethora of scientific evidence supporting the theories.
-
Trying to prove God doesn't exist, to me, is dogmatic. It's impossible to achieve and I just think people are wasting their time by trying to do so.
The onus is on the religious fraternity to prove that their God does exist but they have no evidence whatsoever to back up the existence of this omnipotent being. It shouldn't be on those who don't believe to prove he doesn't exist because there is absolutely no need to do so because of the complete lack of proof of God's existence in the first place.
I don't believe that most atheists do try to prove that God doesn't exist. I don't know any who take that approach. I'd rather ask for the proof that he does. None is ever forthcoming.
Instead those who believe question such things as evolution by trying to use the fact that science does try and prove hypotheses and theories, and then continually questions them, to try and claim theories on evolution are wrong, yet completely ignore a plethora of scientific evidence supporting the theories.
There is no need for Atheists to disprove the existence of a God or Gods, science will do that for them eventually.
Sooner rather than later hopefully, the gap is getting smaller and smaller which is encouraging.
Unfortunately most governments see Religion as a very very usefull political tool, so for the time being we are very much stuck with it.
The rate that technology is advancing is quite phenomenal at the moment, we seem to be moving into a 'new age of reason'. The passing of information is almost instantaneous at the moment, so the Internet provides the perfect platform for Atheist and Theists alike, but as science is so quickly advancing the Theists bandolier is running out of bullets rapidly. Given the evidence produced in science eventually the more intelligent of the indoctrinated masses will see reason and be able to face reality without the feeling of dread.
-
There is no need for Atheists to disprove the existence of a God or Gods
Isn't that what I said? ???
science will do that for them eventually.
I don't think science can prove God doesn't exist, because of the very nature of what the believers say God is. It's one of the clever ways in which they hang on to their beliefs.
Science can prove that the believer's claims of how the world came to be and how we came to be here are wrong, which is the case already. That blows the credibility of their belief system out of the water.
It is unfortunate that there are gaps in evolutionary knowledge and records for them to latch onto. Mapping of genomes will close many of those gaps. Unfortunatley, the lack of organic evidence from millions of years ago makes mapping genomes of species long extinct impossible, but that's where cladistics comes in. Then there are concepts such as the molecular clock which is used to predict at which point two species diverged.
Gaps in the fossil record don't help. Yes new discoveries are made all the time, but the fossil record is never going to be complete because of the circumstances and conditions necessary for fossils to form. In many cases it has been pure luck that a particular species has found itself in the fossil record.
-
science will do that for them eventually.
I don't think science can prove God doesn't exist, because of the very nature of what the believers say God is. It's one of the clever ways in which they hang on to their beliefs.
[/quote]
Have Faith brother. ;)
Love a bit of irony, lol
-
I've been trying to have Faith for years ...
... she's having none of it.
Although I did go out with a pretty blonde called Hope for a while, but that was back in the 80's. After that, Hope was lost.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8 - Thought I posted this the other night, must have done something wrong.
It's a debate between William Lane Craig - a Christian philosopher/apologist and Christopher Hitchens. It's a video that just goes to show why it's futile arguing with Christians! I've watched a few of Craig's debates and he's probably the best I've ever seen. His use of rhetoric and his ability to deconstruct arguments is second to none. Hitchens is a clever man but gets slaughtered.
WLC has called on Dawkins to debate with him a few times but Dawkins has always refused.
-
I've been trying to have Faith for years ...
... she's having none of it.
Although I did go out with a pretty blonde called Hope for a while, but that was back in the 80's. After that, Hope was lost.
Think you'll be needing Charity myself :P
-
I've been trying to have Faith for years ...
... she's having none of it.
Although I did go out with a pretty blonde called Hope for a while, but that was back in the 80's. After that, Hope was lost.
Think you'll be needing Charity myself :P
I've always been willing to give a bit to charity. ;)
-
What about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75b1FMzGTB8&feature=youtu.be)headcase..........deary me.
-
Haha, what a nut job. I think he needs to look at what really built his country. Geology, evolution of plants etc. Not to mention the fact that America had a population before Westerners got there, the American Indian, remember them?
Now this one has always made me laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504. His grasp of science is amazing.
Happen to quite like this as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu7AQTs_y5A&feature=relmfu Good ol' Dawkins. Not very politically correct though. Mind you if the chap in Momo's link had told Muslims to get out of America and not atheists, he'd probably have been arrested.
-
A wee bit off topic, but I've just finished watching this, some light comedy from Micheal Sheen.
Not a bad movie, some of you might like it.
Jesus Henry Christ (http://www.solarmovie.eu/link/play/892593/)
Only one pop-up to deal with.
-
The Intelligence Squared Debate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5OMNPmoVAw&feature=related)
-
What a joke of a debate. lol
Two of the most articulate, intelligent authors in the world vs an inarticulate bishop and Anne Widdecombe!
William Lane Craig would wipe the floor with the both of them.
-
Love a massacre.
-
Anne Widdecombe, how could anyone take that seriously. I mean, stick a grey beard on her and she is the spitting image of Ken Bates.
-
This chap is very aggressive, this is one of his tamer opinions....................Pat Condell. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE&feature=g-vrec)
-
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
-
Sounds about right lololol ;D
-
I'll keep an open mind about a lot of things such as supernatural phenomena or life on other planets. Althouh extraterrestrial life is something I believe must be out there. with the vastness of space, although it has little more concrete proof at present than the existence of some omnipotent being.
As far as I'm concerned, extra-terrestrial life is about as legit as Bigfoot...In fact, I've often questionned what actually is beyond planet earth and whether or not it even exists to the extent to what people want you to believe.
For example, whose to say Pluto exists? What if it's something completely different all together and we've just totally missed the mark?
After all, we'll never find out...We don't have the time, money, resources or human willingness to truly find out what exists in the deeper echelons of space, so to print it all out in black and white in such a factual basis is ridiculous, imo.
If you believe what a science book tells you about our solar system, when the evidence is quite clearly severly lacking and seriously sketchy, then why would you not pick up the Bible and believe that Jesus/God existed? It all falls into the same realms of reality as far as I'm concerned.
People wouldn't give you the time of day to listen to you if you think Bigfoot is real, but they'll happily lap up a book on Astronomy and believe Pluto is exactly what scientists say it is, despite the fact we havent' even come remotely close to being able to effectively prove such a conclusion.
Just some late night food for thought for you.
-
I don't even know where to start with just how flawed that post is Ross.
-
I think cobblers is a good place to start Drags.
-
I think that what he is saying is that he is an existentialist.
Personally, as I have a spare few minutes, my view on it all is:
- I believe that Man made God, not vice-versa.
- I don't care how or why the universe was made, but I do not believe that it was god.
- It is moronic to believe that, given the vastness of space, "life" does not exist on some of the trillions of other planets. Our planet is teeming with life in the coldest, hottest, deepest and most hostile places. It stands to reason that life will occur naturally and there is nothing special about the earth that makes it the only planet capable of supporting life.
- It is equally moronic to believe fat Americans who suggest that they have been probed by ETs.
- I am an atheist, but this does not mean that I do not have any beliefs. I believe that there is no god. I don't know it for certain, nobody ever will, but I'd say it's a pretty fair bet that all religion is primitive mumbo-jumbo.
- I have no issue with moderate religious people.
- I pity those who devote their life to religion, because they appear to be wasting their time on fairy stories.
- I think that wars started in the name of religion would have probably started anyhow, and the religion is just an excuse.
- It annoys me that people have to be sensitive to people's religions, yet you can say what you like about atheists. for instance: http://www.news.com.au/national-old/atheists-are-believers-who-hate-god-says-anglican-archbishop-peter-jensen/story-e6frfkvr-1225848927144 (http://www.news.com.au/national-old/atheists-are-believers-who-hate-god-says-anglican-archbishop-peter-jensen/story-e6frfkvr-1225848927144).
- Basically, religion was invented to explain the inexplicable. The Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo because he said that the Earth orbited the sun. Pope Innocent VIII gave his tick of approval to the Spanish Inquisition because he said that crop failure was a result of witchcraft. If God's was real, and the Bible was not a book of fairy tales, if the pope was infallible, then how could the Catholics have got it so wrong all those years ago, but they are so right now?
- Christianity is the biggest religion and estimates are that about 30% of the world is Christian. I would suggest that this number is very generous to Christianity and covers a lot of people who have no real religion but just tick the "christian" box on the census as a default. But even so, even of all 30% were devout, I cannot understand how they are so sure that they are right and the other 70% are wrong.....this is the same for all though. Whilst I am in a smaller minority, I accept that I could be wrong - they "know" that they are right.
- Americans are nuts: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/survey-americans-prefer-muslim-president-atheist (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/survey-americans-prefer-muslim-president-atheist)
- It's time to log out and go home......
-
I don't even know where to start with just how flawed that post is Ross.
How is it flawed? Is it completely unreasonable to believe that, given the shear lack of evidence supporting space, there are factual discrepancies about what actually does exist out there?
It is, and never will be, physically possible to find out what exists in the deeper echelons of space, so it's completely irrelevant to filter fact from fiction, because it can never be proven.
-
Never is a long time........................................
-
Not sure how you can be so certain, Ross.
To categorically say other life doesn't exist in our universe seems arrogant and naive to say the least. If life can exist in the conditions on Earth, I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility to say there might be another planet somewhere in the universe with similar conditions. We might not have the capabilities to travel very far right now... but human space travel is still in its infancy and science will continue to make strides. We've just discovered the Higgs boson which gives objects their mass and prevents them from ever reaching the speed of light. One day scientists might be able to use it to manipulate the mass of objects and make them travel at the speed of light or even faster...
As for the Pluto thing... Not sure I get what you mean. The Hubble telescope has taken many pictures of Pluto and scientists know its exact surface chemistry. We think it's a round block of rock and ice... is that wrong? There's even a NASA spacecraft on its way there that will arrive in 2015 that will provide even more information about it.
People said Galilieo's theory was impossible, and that Darwin's theory was impossible. Hell, people even said Peter Higgs's theory was impossible. You've gotta keep an open mind with science! It's continually making new discoveries. Religion, on the other hand, claims to know everything already... and it's being gradually etched away at by science.
-
Have you ever studied astrophysics (not astronomy) at any level Ross? Studied the methods used to determine the size, composition and many other factors of different planets? As science evolves corrections are made and planets may be re-classified but much of the current science is based on what is possible and what is known from current techniques.
As for this:
After all, we'll never find out...We don't have the time, money, resources or human willingness to truly find out what exists in the deeper echelons of space, so to print it all out in black and white in such a factual basis is ridiculous, imo.
Really?
So no countries at the moment have huge budgets for space research? NASA must be a figment of my imagination. Russia have no interest in Space (yeah, okay, right). China aren't working on it either (okay, if you say so) and Europe as a whole is completely ignoring it (ho hum).
There is a huge investment in the investigation of space.
Ever heard of the hundred year star ship project/project icarus? A group of not for profit scientists who are looking into the requirements for deep space travel and looking to make it a reality?
http://100yss.org/initiative
http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/about/
My cousin just happens to be one of the directors of Project Icarus, he also worked for NASA as an Interstellar Communications Engineer. There's a lot more going on at NASA than just sending the odd shuttle to the moon, launching a few satellites and manning the odd space station.
But of course there is no interest in this whatsoever.
-
I'm quite confident that we're not too far away from deep space travel, 40 or 50 years perhaps. I remember a few years ago reading about a theory involving using a giant electromagnet to hop dimensions. It would mean that you could power a ship to travel to Mars in a few days if I remember correctly.
Wouldn't surprise me if in the next hundred years or so we have teleportation sorted too. :o
In terms of technology we've made some great leaps during the last 100 years and if you think for a second that we won't be able to travel outside this solar system during the next 100 years then you're seriously deluded. They reckon we may be only a decade away from a man landing on Mars (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9448816/Mankind-only-a-decade-away-from-Mars-landing.html).
-
Whilst I believe that the science regarding pluto is sound, I kind of understand what Ross is getting at. Pluto is an average of a 22 year round trip away when travelling at voyager 1 speeds. Without dramatically increasing our capabilities, we are unlikely to go and, to be honest, other than natural human curiosity - there is no real reason to go.
So all we have for the forseeable future is a few graphically enhanced images of pluto. If he chooses to not accept that this is adequate proof of the dwarf planet then it is not unreasonable. Scientists tell me that humans are creating climate change through the production of CO2 and that, in my opinion, is utter rubbish.
Mocking Ross for not accepting the science would, to me, be like a christian mocking someone for not believing in god.
I think he is completely wrong but I respect his right to not consider the science to be conclusive proof.
-
.... if you think for a second that we won't be able to travel outside this solar system during the next 100 years then you're seriously deluded.
That's a big call. With conventional travel, even if it were possible to travel at the speed of light, it would take 4 years to reach the next closest solar system. Given that the speed of light is 17,500x faster than our current fastest travel speed - we still have a way to go.
The theoretical physics of travelling through "worm holes" all sounds a bit dodgy to me.
-
A hundred years ago nobody in their right mind would have thought that a man walking on the moon was possible, aircraft travelling faster than the speed of sound, computers the size that they are these days, organ transplants, microwave ovens, television, video, DVDs and Blu-Rays, nuclear fission and fusion. The list goes on and on.
I'm very confident that as long as we don't all blow each other to pieces during the next 100 years that we'll be able to travel outside this solar system and colonise other planets.
-
Whilst I believe that the science regarding pluto is sound, I kind of understand what Ross is getting at. Pluto is an average of a 22 year round trip away when travelling at voyager 1 speeds. Without dramatically increasing our capabilities, we are unlikely to go and, to be honest, other than natural human curiosity - there is no real reason to go.
So all we have for the forseeable future is a few graphically enhanced images of pluto. If he chooses to not accept that this is adequate proof of the dwarf planet then it is not unreasonable. Scientists tell me that humans are creating climate change through the production of CO2 and that, in my opinion, is utter rubbish.
Mocking Ross for not accepting the science would, to me, be like a christian mocking someone for not believing in god.
I think he is completely wrong but I respect his right to not consider the science to be conclusive proof.
*thumbs up*
It's not as if I'm completely in denial about it...I'm willing to believe anything that can be adequately proven to a good enough standard, but there's still alot of gospel surrounding space and what exactly is there.
I mean, haven't scientists only recently de-classified Pluto because they might now think it's alot smaller than they anticipated previously?
Science is based off hypothesis and predictions...It isn't completely outlandish to disbelieve them, because a hypothesis is merely a guess, and in no way tied to fact.
Like I said, I'm willing to believe anything if a sufficient amount of evidence can be put forward to back up the claims of whatever it is people are claiming, but I just think the reality of space leaves alot to be desired at the moment in time.
-
Have just watched the Horizon episode about the Curiosity landing and I can see it going severely tits up lol. Too complex, too many things to go wrong. Will be an absolutely amazing achievement if they manage to do it!!! I'm really hoping it all works out as I'm really interested to see if there was life on Mars hundreds of millions of years ago.
The theory about hyperspace travel I mentioned earlier is based on work by Burkhard Heim, and two guys have expanded on it. Currently there's no way of creating a magnetic field large enough I think but who knows...we may see something happening in the next half century or so. Travelling to Mars in 3 hours. Nice!
-
Curiosity. (http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/422313_490113431016274_1008159813_n.jpg)
-
Apparently they discovered cats existed on Mars, but curiosity killed them.
-
If I still had my powers I'd seriously consider banning you for that.
-
;D
Come on, it had to be done.
-
(chortle) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKOS4I6pUuY&feature=related)
-
Difference between science and faith :
Science is firmly based on theories which are based on matter of fact.
Sometimes, science can be wrong as theories are disproved, prehaps as a result of technology and knowledge progression, however, the core principle of science is to discover facts.. or the truth.
Faith is firmly based on theories which can not proven/unproven.
Faith is simply that, believing in something that defies reason and sometimes it actually requires you to reject fact.. something that in certain cases, can be a life-threatening situation. Martin Luther King once said "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." I think that sums up my opinion on faith - if you believe in reason, you can't truly have faith.
So Im afraid, I agree with the general opinion that Ross' argument is garbage.. whilst science can be disproven and pluto very well may be exactly what he says... the science behind anything in life does not try to deceive you, it is based on actual facts. Knowing that, I can pick up an astromony book and believe it as fact quite easily.... If I pick up a bible, one of the first things to note is a talking snake and that the world is only around 6000 years old... both things go against logic, reason and every knowledgeable thing we know as humans.
-
Election time in the Colonies soon who's it to be?
Penn Jillette. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE&feature=context-vrec)
-
Spacemen only...............................Demons Of Negativity-Resurrection. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjk3vONwMzM&list=PLAE25016401641437&shuffle=20146)
-
Extremely negative month last month for the invisible guy in the sky brigade.
Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jPDlgq-znrY)
-
Aaaaaaarrrghh bouncing elephants, lots of bouncing elephants.
-
There's another one here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK27aknWVI4). ;D
Here's an interesting fact, and is probably inspiration for these things: elephants are physically incapable of jumping. Think it has something to do with their knees if I remember correctly. 8)
-
Elephant's knees, eh?, or the lack of them don't seem to be hampering this chappie's technique, he's a natural.
-
No he's not. Someone just cut out the part at the beginning where someone threw it off the top of a tall building lol ;D
-
They don't have to jump, we all know the African ones can fly with their big ears. I've seen Dumbo, I know it's true.
-
Clicky. (https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003125_649265291767753_600119821_n.png)
-
Clicky2 (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1176193_690567124304236_1623646380_n.jpg)