Everything has a creator, look around you cars, buildings, houses, dirt bikes, country clubs, napalm, etc. So why is it that the world and the universe wouldn't have a creator?
Everyone knows that God made people, it is obvious that people didn't come from monkeys. If they did then why are teh monkeys still around then? My great great great great great grandfather was a monkey and his great great great great grandfather was a fish and that fish just came out of nothing? How come you don't just see sludge coming to life now if that is what happened billions of years ago. If you say that this all happened billions and billions of years ago then that was so long ago that you can say anything happened back then.
God is powerful and stuff so how can he be powerful and all knowing if he doesn't even exist? That doesn't make sense to say that God doesn't exist because that contradicts everything about him doesn't it.
Also what about the bible? Does the bible just not exist either? The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

Everything has a creator, look around you cars, buildings, houses, dirt bikes, country clubs, napalm, etc. So why is it that the world and the universe wouldn't have a creator?

Just to set the record, entirely possible in my opinion.

Everyone knows that God made people, it is obvious that people didn't come from monkeys. If they did then why are teh monkeys still around then?

We didn't evolve from monkeys as we know them, but we all share a common ancestor.

My great great great great great grandfather was a monkey and his great great great great grandfather was a fish and that fish just came out of nothing?

You obviously have not grasped the concept of evolution. Are you trolling? I can host Darwin's book if you want, I suggest you read his theory before you bash it.

How come you don't just see sludge coming to life now if that is what happened billions of years ago. If you say that this all happened billions and billions of years ago then that was so long ago that you can say anything happened back then.
God is powerful and stuff so how can he be powerful and all knowing if he doesn't even exist? That doesn't make sense to say that God doesn't exist because that contradicts everything about him doesn't it.
Also what about the bible? Does the bible just not exist either? The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

Hahaha, oh I see. Alright. :D

Just to set the record, entirely possible in my opinion.

Since everything in this world has a maker, it is logical to assume that the world has a maker too.


We didn't evolve from monkeys as we know them, but we all share a common ancestor.

We all share a common ancestor in Adam, but monkey's aren't included in that. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans were created the way they are, humans share a common ancestor in Adam.


You obviously have not grasped the concept of evolution. Are you trolling? I can host Darwin's book if you want, I suggest you read his theory before you bash it.

According to evolution I have an ancestor who is a monkey and an ancestor of that ancestor was a fish. If I have fish and monkey in my background why wouldn't I have fish and monkey DNA just like if I had duck or chinese in my background I would have duck and chinese DNA?

Since everything in this world has a maker, it is logical to assume that the world has a maker too.

Sorry, in my first post I didn't mean it's possible that we were designed. I meant to say it's possible that the universe has/had a creator and that I'm not a strict atheist.

It is simply not logical to assume that the world has a designer based on the fact that many things in the world are designed. If you aren't a troll, it appears you have very little capacity for critical/free thought.

According to evolution I have an ancestor who is a monkey and an ancestor of that ancestor was a fish. If I have fish and monkey in my background why wouldn't I have fish and monkey DNA just like if I had duck or chinese in my background I would have duck and chinese DNA?

You don't understand the theory, I'll host the book for you if you'll download it. Please read it, take it with a grain of salt, decide if you want to believe it.

It's been a while since I've read it, I don't remember every detail and I'm not about to sift through it and explain it step by step for you...

Also what about the bible? Does the bible just not exist either? The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

Do fairies and goblins not exist? Are you sure? Because there are several series of books written by J.R.R. Tolkien that says they do...

The books surely exist, because I have copies of them on my bookshelf and I am eyeballing them right now. The books exist, therefore the content inside must exist as well.

See how silly that is?

According to evolution I have an ancestor who is a monkey and an ancestor of that ancestor was a fish. If I have fish and monkey in my background why wouldn't I have fish and monkey DNA just like if I had duck or chinese in my background I would have duck and chinese DNA?


Scientifically, DNA from all living things are made out of the same conponents, basically nucleotides with bases attached to them all linked together with different bonds.

So a duck's DNA is actually the same as our DNA, only in a different sequence and maybe shorter.
But then again, your DNA is also sequenced different from my DNA...
And if you're interested, bacteria actually has highly evolved DNA replicating systems, higher than ours. (Just wanted to add that)


BTW, have you ever wondered, did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?
If they did, didn't that mean someone gave birth to them?
If they didn't, doesn't it mean we got selected (or "evolved", if you prefer, but I think "selection" is a better word) which complements "the survival of the fittest" (it's a Darwin thing)

BTW, have you ever wondered, did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?
If they did, didn't that mean someone gave birth to them?
If they didn't, doesn't it mean we got selected (or "evolved", if you prefer, but I think "selection" is a better word) which complements "the survival of the fittest" (it's a Darwin thing)

Your logic is about as bad as a Creationist's.

The bellybutton is a scar from the umbilical cord. According to the second creation story of Genesis, God made Adam out of dust and Eve from part of Adam (usually translated as a rib bone). He could've made them with a bellybutton if he felt like it, or without one. But because of the way that humans reproduce (placental animals) there's an umbilical cord and therefore any children they had would have had a bellybutton, regardless of whether Adam and Eve had been "sculpted" with any.

And if you're interested, bacteria actually has highly evolved DNA replicating systems, higher than ours. (Just wanted to add that)

Actually, the replication of bacterial DNA is much less controled than ours leaving it more vulnerable to mutations.

Actually, those things you mentioned have many creators (houses, cars, dirt bikes, etc.) All of these things contain materials that were produced and handled by different people all down the line. Does this mean that you are a polytheist? Because these things all have many creators wouldn't it logically follow that we too have many creators? As do the trees, birds, oceans, etc.?

Actually, all matter that exists in the universe (as we know it) has come about naturally, without any entity which is its designer/creator. If you are talking about houses, cars, etc, well those are all just mental constructs made from said matter. So has the natural world been designed or created by some entity? We have no example of such an instance, so I don't see why.

Everything has a creator, look around you cars, buildings, houses, dirt bikes, country clubs, napalm, etc. So why is it that the world and the universe wouldn't have a creator?


Argument from design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
/fail




Everyone knows that God made people, it is obvious that people didn't come from monkeys.


Begging the question
/fail



If they did then why are teh monkeys still around then? My great great great great great grandfather was a monkey and his great great great great grandfather was a fish and that fish just came out of nothing? How come you don't just see sludge coming to life now if that is what happened billions of years ago. If you say that this all happened billions and billions of years ago then that was so long ago that you can say anything happened back then.


Complete and utter ignorance on the subject of evolution.
/fail



God is powerful and stuff so how can he be powerful and all knowing if he doesn't even exist? That doesn't make sense to say that God doesn't exist because that contradicts everything about him doesn't it.


Begging the question
/fail



Also what about the bible? Does the bible just not exist either? The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

Appeal to authority fallacy
/fail


Ergo,
Fail

You guys are soooo convincing :rolleyes:

(directly particularly at the last post)

Actually, all matter that exists in the universe (as we know it) has come about naturally, without any entity which is its designer/creator. If you are talking about houses, cars, etc, well those are all just mental constructs made from said matter. So has the natural world been designed or created by some entity? We have no example of such an instance, so I don't see why.

I have to agree with you, but for the sake of the thread also pose this idea...

Your correct that everything, including us, is just naturally occuring matter that came together naturally to form whatever (in terms of having no creator) but I think what the OP is trying to put across is that things such as cars, houses, etc. would most likely not naturally form in the universe, they must be created by a sentient being and following that logic it must apply to us as well.

Of course this isn't my view im just giving food for thought here. It always poses the question "if got created us, who created god?"

1. You are either a troll or an uneducated moron who uses 4th grade level logic

2. With our current knowledge of how life came to be, there are no right or wrong answers on this subject. There is evidence to support a right or wrong answer but there is no definite answer, so you cant say that the beliefs of atheists are wrong. They are just different than yours.

1. You are either a troll or an uneducated moron who uses 4th grade level logic.

Possibly both?

Everything has a creator, look around you cars, buildings, houses, dirt bikes, country clubs, napalm, etc. So why is it that the world and the universe wouldn't have a creator?

Not everything has a creator. Rocks do not have creators, unless you consider a natural geologic process to be a creator. The same goes for animals and plants. Even if you considered their parents to be their creators, it is not like the design-type creation that God supposedly did. Rather, the complexity of current plants and animals is also from natural processes which are described by the theory of evolution, natural selection, and some other theories.

The actual argument made by most creationists is described in this book I have called Eyewitness Science: Evolution.

PALEY'S WATCH
William Paley began Natural Theology with an example to prove his basic point. He imagined himself walking across a field and finding a watch among the stones. Unlike the stones, the watch has moving parts that work together for a purpose. The existence of the watch would prove that there was a watchmaker. Paley drew a parallel between a watch and an animal. Just as the watch proved the existence of a watchmaker, so an animal (or plant) proved the existence of a Creator. By studying natural history, the nature of God could be better understood.

If you want me to answer this, I'll just scan the pages that this is found on for you to read. Don't worry, it has plenty of pictures to look at.

Everyone knows that God made people, it is obvious that people didn't come from monkeys. If they did then why are teh monkeys still around then?

"Monkey" is an ambiguous term. We are actually descended from great apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hominidae.PNG

The genus Homo includes humans, neanderthals, australopithecines (Lucy), and all those other ape-men you've heard about. Pan is Chimpanzees, Gorilla is gorillas, Pongo is orangutans, and Hylobates is gibbons. Scientists of today classify species by their evolutionary history, and this image depicts the line of descent for the great apes. In an oversimplified way of describing it, as you go further up on the image, you go further back in time.

How these species form is typically not an individual organism going "hey, I'm evolved" and becoming a new species. Rather, speciation usually occurs when a population of a species becomes separated for some reason or another so that they cannot interbreed. Over time, the two populations' genetic code changes via mutations and selection. Selection is the process by which certain traits or genes are "selected" over others, and therefore become more prevalent in the population. The gradual change of the overall genetic makup of a population is called genetic drift. Anyway, once the two populations of the organism become different to the point that they can no longer interbreed, they are considered different species by definition.

How the population becomes separated can be one of several ways. They could be geographically separated, like on different parts of the world or isolated on islands and that sort of thing. Or, they could fit into different niches in the same geographic area, which is the organisms "place" in the ecosystem. What it eats and how it behaves are a couple examples. A comparison to humans could be the division between social classes or castes. It's like how all those rich people always married each other to keep their wealth and they often ended up with all those genetic disorders, and how some of those people in India have 6 fingers on each hand and weird shit like that.

(In reality, all those genes are already present in the population, but since they are recessive genes you need two of them to have them take effect. And inbreeding allows this to happen more frequently.)

Ahem, I'm getting ahead of myself.

So anyway, look back at the picture. You'll see the line at the top right going down and branching into the ancestors of gibbons and the ancestors of the rest of the great apes. What has happened here is probably one of the processes described above. Most often it's geographic separation between two populations of the same species that allows it to happen. Once genes stop being exchanged between them, genetic drift inevidably drags the two groups away from each other until they can no longer be considered the same species.

Next, the population that includes the ancestors of the rest of the great apes divides into two more groups which become orangutans and the rest, and so on. This process probably happens countless times, but the ones marked in the image are the important divisions between today's non-extinct great apes. Most species that ever existed are extinct today.

It is also possible for speciation to happen in a linear way. A single population can change over time to the point that, theoretically, it could not reproduce with its prior version.

Now that I have given you a brief description of how speciation works, I will give an answer to your question.

A good question to ask might be "why aren't the ancestors of the great apes still around today in the same form they were back then?"

Well, the truth is that this could happen. Some species stay remarkably similar in appearance to their ancestors. However, this would appear to only happen to very successful species. I think I remember crocodilians being an example.

Countless mutations in genetic code inevidably happen to all species, but not all mutations are equal. There are certain key genes which can turn on and off many other genes. If one of these key genes is hit by a mutation, then there will be a noticable difference from parent to child after a mutation during reproduction. From here, selection will determine whether the mutation becomes popular or not in the species. However, the vast majority of mutations will have little to no effect, and because of this selection will not work to remove these mutations.

So basically the same amount of difference in genetic code happens to species over the same number of generations, but the amount of effect it has on the organism varies on where the mutations are and what selection does with them. Most of the time there are some major changes and the species is no longer the same as it was in the past. I'm guessing this is the case with the descendants of the great apes' common ancestor.


That's a lot of stuff I just typed... but my goal is not to change your mind, but for you to learn something from it.

(continued in next post)

My great great great great great grandfather was a monkey and his great great great great grandfather was a fish and that fish just came out of nothing? How come you don't just see sludge coming to life now if that is what happened billions of years ago. If you say that this all happened billions and billions of years ago then that was so long ago that you can say anything happened back then.

These are good questions, even if they aren't phrased particularly well.

The conditions on ancient earth are much different than they are today. One thing is that the contents of the ocean and atmosphere are not the same. I haven't looked much into this before, so I'll use some links.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/earth.html
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/past/earths_primordial_ocean.html&edu=high

The first two are for college courses, and the third is for an educational site. It's usually a good idea not to get information from a website trying to prove a point, as they tend to be biased.

Okay, oxygen. From the second link:

"Large amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere of earth are unusual for oxygen is a very reactive gas and readily combines with metals and other elements. Earth's atmosphere with abundant free molecular O2 would mark it as a very special planet for any intelligent beings visiting our solar system for the first time."

The main reason we have lots of free oxygen (i.e. O2, not in the form of carbon dioxide, water, rust, or other more stable compounds) is that we have life forms that use photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide and water into free oxygen and plant food, releasing the free oxygen into the air. Before life, there was not as much oxygen being produced. According to current theory, volcanoes were the main source of our atmosphere's contents after our first atmosphere was eventually blown away by solar wind. Volcanoes release little or no free oxygen. Rather it's in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, and some other compounds.

From the first link:

Second Atmosphere

Produced by volcanic out gassing.

Gases produced were probably similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane).

The gases in the atmosphere were also dissolved into the oceans, effecting its content. See the third link.

In addition to the different contents of the atmosphere and ocean, you have the fact that there is no other life to interfere with these life-making processes. Today's life is strong and aggressive in comparison to what would start out back then. They munch up nutrients and other life forms in order to survive.

And then there's the factor of time. It would probably take a long time (millions of years) for the beginnings of life to self-organize itself into something comparible to today's life.


The other question posed is how do we know that we're not just pulling this stuff out of our asses if we don't have good information on how it happened.

Well, it is true that information is very limited compared to the data we have on the evolutionary history of later life. We do not have a fossil record of the beginnings of life. Fossils form in certain conditions, such as having hard body parts that can be fossilized (although it's not completely necessary), being buried quickly enough that it does not entirely decay, and having minerals leech into the soil that fossilize the organism. Fossils of unicellular organisms are very difficult to find. The earliest life is believed to have not even been cellular, let alone have hard body parts that facillitate fossilization.

So using the fossil record is pretty much out of the question. What can we use?

One of the things scientists use to build theories of the earliest life is to compare the genetic sequences of the most distantly related life forms on earth. By finding common characteristics in the gene pool, we can find the genes that may have been there since very early in the history of life.

There's also something closely related, something about metabolic pathways. The actual basic mechanisms in cells defined by genetic code. They can trace those back to ancestral organisms.

By having an idea of the conditions of early earth, scientists can make experiments that reproduce such conditions. They can then simulate events that could produce or further the development of life. In this way, they can find a possible route for early life to have taken.

Why scientists think that life has a natural origin is that we already have plenty of information that gives us a detailed account of how life has changed over hundreds of millions of years. Going back further in history brings us to simpler and simpler life forms... it seems to be a rational conclusion that life was once so simple that it was only slightly complex chemical reactions, and before that it was chemical reactions indistinguishable from what we now think of as non-biological.

So in the end, we see biological life as only a sum of chemical reactions in a complex, ordered way, becoming increasing complex as time goes on.

I don't think this necessarily applies to life in the sense of consciousness, though. Like how we are conscious entities, having "souls" so to speak. But that's just my opinion.

God is powerful and stuff so how can he be powerful and all knowing if he doesn't even exist? That doesn't make sense to say that God doesn't exist because that contradicts everything about him doesn't it.
Also what about the bible? Does the bible just not exist either? The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

If you ask this with sincerity, I think you should go back and look at the logic behind what you're saying. It's something too subjective for me to give an objective answer on, so I won't attempt to answer for now.

Yes, this is a very long post, and you probably didn't read it all. It may have errors. Correct me if you see any.

Do fairies and goblins not exist? Are you sure? Because there are several series of books written by J.R.R. Tolkien that says they do...

The books surely exist, because I have copies of them on my bookshelf and I am eyeballing them right now. The books exist, therefore the content inside must exist as well.

See how silly that is?

That is the lord of the rings, I'm talking about the bible. If God doesn't exist then why is the bible around?

You guys are soooo convincing :rolleyes:

(directly particularly at the last post)

Well when the OP is one big walking logical fallacy...

That is the lord of the rings, I'm talking about the bible. If God doesn't exist then why is the bible around?

Well, if you don't like drawing parallels between such a great work of fiction as LOTR and the bible, as yourself why would the Greeks write about their gods if they did not exist instead?






According to evolution I have an ancestor who is a monkey and an ancestor of that ancestor was a fish. If I have fish and monkey in my background why wouldn't I have fish and monkey DNA just like if I had duck or chinese in my background I would have duck and chinese DNA?

You still do. Some of these genes have mostly been rendered inactive or distrupted, so they are not expressed. Many others have evolved themselves to code for what we find today. Try googling orthologs in your spare time - proteins in different species that share the same evolutionary ancestor.


"if got created us, who created god?"

I glad this was mentioned

Well, if you don't like drawing parallels between such a great work of fiction as LOTR and the bible, as yourself why would the Greeks write about their gods if they did not exist instead?


the lord of the rings may be a good book but the bible is the bible. The greeks might have written about their gods but they didn't write the bible, did they? The bible isn't about the greek gods.

the lord of the rings may be a good book but the bible is the bible. The greeks might have written about their gods but they didn't write the bible, did they? The bible isn't about the greek gods.

If you think you're being logical, you've got another thing coming.

Christmas troll. Grinch?

Your logic is about as bad as a Creationist's.

The bellybutton is a scar from the umbilical cord. According to the second creation story of Genesis, God made Adam out of dust and Eve from part of Adam (usually translated as a rib bone). He could've made them with a bellybutton if he felt like it, or without one. But because of the way that humans reproduce (placental animals) there's an umbilical cord and therefore any children they had would have had a bellybutton, regardless of whether Adam and Eve had been "sculpted" with any.
You're right. Thanks for answering my question.


Actually, the replication of bacterial DNA is much less controled than ours leaving it more vulnerable to mutations.

Mutations aren't necessarily bad, it's kinda like an adaptaion to the enviroment for the species (not individual).

I... act weird and stupid sometimes. I'm sorry if I bothered anyone with my smart-ass comments.

I'd look pretty stupid if I posted all that to a troll. I figured it'd be interesting anyway, I guess.

I... act weird and stupid sometimes. I'm sorry if I bothered anyone with my smart-ass comments.

I'd look pretty stupid if I posted all that to a troll. I figured it'd be interesting anyway, I guess.

I appreciate your post at least.

the lord of the rings may be a good book but the bible is the bible. The greeks might have written about their gods but they didn't write the bible, did they? The bible isn't about the greek gods.

What makes the bible and its contents more real than the lord of the rings?

And I hope for everyones sake that your answer isn't because the bible/church/etc. says that the bible is true and correct.

How come you don't just see sludge coming to life now if that is what happened billions of years ago. If you say that this all happened billions and billions of years ago then that was so long ago that you can say anything happened back then.


Study evolution, educate yourself before posting. I have a better question for you but first a few facts:

Ready?

The Earth has layers....these layers represent time periods on the Earth. In most places if you dig down you will dig through the layers in this fashion:

Outer layers = newest time periods.
Inner layers = Oldest time periods.

Now that those FACTS are out of the way let me hit you with another FACT:

The oldest layers of the Earth have the simplest lifeforms. Nothing with complex eyes, nervous systems, digestive etc. NOTHING. As you climb up from these oldest layers if you could see the fossils you will notice something. As time progressed, things got more complex. This trend continues through the layers of the Earth until we get to today.

Those are the FACTS.

Now the question......
Why did your God create lifeforms very simply in the beginning and the create more and more complex one's over the course of billions of years? Why did he create billions of lifeforms that went extinct?

Also what about the bible? Does the bible just not exist either? The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

If the bible says it, then it must be true.....correct? Have you even read parts of the fucking book? What do you think this book is about? Prayer? Worship? God?

Some more fun facts:

The Bible devotes some 500 verses on prayer, less than 500 verses on faith, but over 2000 verses on money and possessions.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com check this place out for the numerous, and very simplistic contradictions that riddle your ancient book.

www.zeitgeistmovie.com should explain the rest of the bible.

What do you think this book is about?

It's about the history of the world and humans, truth and facts about the world, and about stuff that happened mostly a really long time ago. Where did the bible come from if god doesn't exist? why is it around?

^^^ To make the monies? The bible is one of the most read and sold books in many countries. Over here it's the nations 3rd favorite book and still sells consistently (If you're curious, LotR is no. 1. Looks like we know a good book when we read it! :D)

Troll :(

Atheism is illogical. End of story. The only way it could be logical is if everything were illogical. And as long as I can make psychological, if not mathematical, sense out of the current dimension, I think things are doing just fine.

You see, Budda had this time called, "shut the fuck up." I think all of you could take his advice. It went like this:

1. Stop bitching about religion.
2. Go find the truth.
3. And if you don't believe there is truth, go make me some chinese food, you depressive surrealist.

Done!

It's about the history of the world and humans, truth and facts about the world, and about stuff that happened mostly a really long time ago. Where did the bible come from if god doesn't exist? why is it around?

My history books in school did a far better job explaining human and world history than the bible ever could. The bible came from a bunch of people writing down and twisting some events that may in some form have happened, and than added in what they wanted. You talk as if the bible has some mystical properties the way you ask "Where did the bible come from if god doesn't exist? why is it around?"

Why is any book around? Following your logic all books should come from god, and if god didn't exist there would be no books because "where would they come from if god doesn't exist?"

The Bible is a story, and at that rate one written by quite a many different people over a really long stretch of time. The only difference with the bible is the force that it puts on people who believe it. I love how we've been comparing the bible to the lord of the rings, so I'll do it again:

The bible talks as if its the "right" way to live life and worship a god in the general sense. The only difference any other book has (such as the lord of the rings) is it does not claim to be the answer or anything like that. If the lord of the rings books did that, you would probably be arguing that the end is near and saruman will return, but than gandalf will come back from the dead and save the day (sound familiar?):)

It all comes down to your own logic, and what you choose to belive.

Everything has a creator, look around you cars, buildings, houses, dirt bikes, country clubs, napalm, etc. So why is it that the world and the universe wouldn't have a creator?
Everyone knows that God made people, it is obvious that people didn't come from monkeys. If they did then why are teh monkeys still around then? My great great great great great grandfather was a monkey and his great great great great grandfather was a fish and that fish just came out of nothing? How come you don't just see sludge coming to life now if that is what happened billions of years ago. If you say that this all happened billions and billions of years ago then that was so long ago that you can say anything happened back then.
God is powerful and stuff so how can he be powerful and all knowing if he doesn't even exist? That doesn't make sense to say that God doesn't exist because that contradicts everything about him doesn't it.
Also what about the bible? Does the bible just not exist either? The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

i believe in a soul. but that was just really terrible :P

Everything has a creator, look around you cars, buildings, houses, dirt bikes, country clubs, napalm, etc. So why is it that the world and the universe wouldn't have a creator?

Idiot. We know how they came into existence.

Everything else you wrote is as retarded as they come.

Please Don't Feed The Troll :(

One can't even tell the difference between the trolls and the actual religious people anymore, such is their incredible stupidity.

One can't even tell the difference between the trolls and the actual religious people anymore, such is their incredible stupidity.

Unfortunately, that same thing plagues the other side of the coin also.

But such is the nature of trolls.

That is the lord of the rings, I'm talking about the bible. If God doesn't exist then why is the bible around?

If Jesus never came to America, why are Mormons around?

If Muhamahd was a false prophet, why do we have the Koran?

If the Pharohs were not divine beings, why do we have pyramids?



Her point is clear. Just because something is in a book (no matter how old) does not mean it is true.

Atheism is illogical. End of story. The only way it could be logical is if everything were illogical.

Atheism is simply without theism. Please demonstrate within a syllogism HOW athiesm is logical only if everything else is illogical.

Or......

You see, Budda had this time called, "shut the fuck up." I think all of you could take his advice.

Take your own advice. ;)

Atheism is simply without theism. Please demonstrate within a syllogism HOW athiesm is logical only if everything else is illogical.


1) Materiality's existence coming about ex nihilo could only occur if the universe were chaotic
2) The universe is not chaotic, it is ordered and logical
___________________________________________
C) Materiality did not come about ex nihilo (atheism is false)

or a formal version:

1) IF material existence came about ex nihilo, THEN the universe is chaotic
2) The universe is NOT chaotic
_________________________
C) Therefore, material existence DID NOT come about ex nihilo

Now, this is completely valid, though I believe p1 somewhat begs the question and is unsupported. Now, I do not agree with this syllogism, but some may.

It makes no sense to speak about beliefs being illogical, if we are actually discussing logic, not the general population’s conception of it. Rather, it is better to speak of belief's justifications or relations to other beliefs being inconsistent or unsound within a given logical system, such as syllogistic logic or paraconsistent logic.

That is quite true, we should probably be speaking of its degree of rationality, plausibility, or whether it's a justified/unjustified belief.

1) IF material existence came about ex nihilo, THEN the universe is chaotic
2) The universe is NOT chaotic
_________________________
C) Therefore, material existence DID NOT come about ex nihilo

Now, this is completely valid, though I believe p1 somewhat begs the question and is unsupported. Now, I do not agree with this syllogism, but some may.

Even if the premises were true. Consider this scenario:

"I believe a god existed, created the universe, then made himself non-existent. I am an atheist because I do not believe in a god, since no god has existed since the beginning of the universe."

Now, this is completely valid, though I believe p1 somewhat begs the question and is unsupported. Now, I do not agree with this syllogism, but some may.

IF P1 is true then there is a true syllogism showing the point and the syllogism has some real value. Since P1 is not known to be true or false, the syllogism is a waste of time (imo).

This is not the syllogism I asked for however. I asked for someone to show a syllogism that has the following conclusion:

Athiesm is only logical if everything else is illogical.

This was the position of Kamisama and I asked for syllogism illustrating this conclusion.

"Unfortunately, that same thing plagues the other side of the coin also."

No, at least not to the extent it does the religious.

This "both sides are always equal no matter what lol" crap needs to stop. It isn't fair, it's misleading and inaccurate.

If your going to ask a question like that, then I ask all you religious people this:

Who created YOUR creator?

Everything has a creator eh?

No, at least not to the extent it does the religious.

This "both sides are always equal no matter what lol" crap needs to stop. It isn't fair, it's misleading and inaccurate.

I wasn't talking about equality, I didn't say "no matter what", and you're the only one lol'ing.

We were talking trolls, Surak. Trolls who display stupidity, in this forum. You're misleading yourself if you think the majority of them are really religious. Even those who have managed to fool you into thinking they're religious - are just effective trolls.

That reminds me, what ever happened to mizled?

I see her post at least weekly, Beany. Mostly in SG.

"I wasn't talking about equality, I didn't say "no matter what", and you're the only one lol'ing.

We were talking trolls, Surak. Trolls who display stupidity, in this forum. You're misleading yourself if you think the majority of them are really religious. Even those who have managed to fool you into thinking they're religious - are just effective trolls."

I've known many, many religious people, and the vast majority were no different than these "trolls" when the subject came up. Many religious leaders are no different than these "trolls." Many religious politicians are no different than these "trolls."

I call bullshit. Yes, there are trolls here, but they are often almost indistinguishable from the real thing. The religious ARE trolls, however unware of it they may be.

Mutations aren't necessarily bad, it's kinda like an adaptaion to the enviroment for the species (not individual).

True, mutations sometimes aren't bad but uncontrolled mutation can become a bad thing over time. Maybe not so much for bacteria since they reproduce asexually but for sexually reproducing organisms continuous mutations can lead to a negative effect.

Argument from design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
/fail

Begging the question
/fail

Complete and utter ignorance on the subject of evolution.
/fail

Begging the question
/fail

Appeal to authority fallacy
/fail

Ergo,
Fail


I agree fully. Nothing but fallacious and illogical thoughts from the OP

Obvious troll is obvious.

If your going to ask a question like that, then I ask all you religious people this:

Who created YOUR creator?

Everything has a creator eh?

Well obviously the creator created the creator.

Well obviously the creator created the creator.

Chuck Norris? (It had to be done)

Well then. The OP is quite a determined little troll isn't he :rolleyes:

Chuck Norris? (It had to be done)

Nah, it comes from something on uncyclopedia relating to the Watchmaker Argument. "If the watchmaker found a nuclear reactor, who made it? The watchmaker. A supercollider? The watchmaker. If the watchmaker found another watchmaker, who made THAT watchmaker? The answer's obvious by now." :)

Everything has a creator, look around you cars, buildings, houses, dirt bikes, country clubs, napalm, etc. So why is it that the world and the universe wouldn't have a creator?
Everyone knows that God made people, it is obvious that people didn't come from monkeys. If they did then why are teh monkeys still around then? My great great great great great grandfather was a monkey and his great great great great grandfather was a fish and that fish just came out of nothing? How come you don't just see sludge coming to life now if that is what happened billions of years ago. If you say that this all happened billions and billions of years ago then that was so long ago that you can say anything happened back then.
God is powerful and stuff so how can he be powerful and all knowing if he doesn't even exist? That doesn't make sense to say that God doesn't exist because that contradicts everything about him doesn't it.
Also what about the bible? Does the bible just not exist either? The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

fail.

The bible says that god exists and he created the world so if god doesn't exist then how come the bible says it?

Great logic there buddy.

If your going to ask a question like that, then I ask all you religious people this:

Who created YOUR creator?

Everything has a creator eh?

If the creator has a creator, then its creator is God. The name of God, in the bible, translates roughly to 'I Have To Exist'. This is often put forth as, 'I Am Who Is', 'Necessary Being', and so on.

Existence just fucking isn't unless God Is. You can try to wrap your head around it if you want, but enjoy the ensuing psychosis of trying to understand something you can't understand. Nifty thing about understanding: if you ask in faith for some of God's understanding, it WILL come. :)

Seek your self and see only creation.
Stop seeking and let the Way be revealed.
-one of many translations of a verse in the Tao te Ching (a perfect supplement to the Bible)

Do fairies and goblins not exist? Are you sure? Because there are several series of books written by J.R.R. Tolkien that says they do...

The books surely exist, because I have copies of them on my bookshelf and I am eyeballing them right now. The books exist, therefore the content inside must exist as well.

See how silly that is?

You make a good point, however the difference between J.R.R Tolkien's books and the Bible is that there is evidence to support the existence of God.

You make a good point, however the difference between J.R.R Tolkien's books and the Bible is that there is evidence to support the existence of God.

cite your evidence

You make a good point, however the difference between J.R.R Tolkien's books and the Bible is that there is evidence to support the existence of God.

There is no difference. They are both fiction fairy tales. Stories about God is not "evidence". They were both written by man. God did not magically make the first Bible appear out of thin air.

By your logic, The Lord of the Rings is evidence that Hobbits exist.

How many times do people need to say this? The Bible was written and edited by MAN. There are parts of the Bible that were omitted by EDITORS. There is no evidence to support the existence of God. Period.

If you wanna show me some real evidence and prove me wrong, go ahead. Just don't quote some bullshit from the Bible that can be interpreted in many, many different ways and that was written by man.

Don't say shit about evidence when the whole system of organized religion is based on faith alone.

There is no difference. They are both fiction fairy tales. Stories about God is not "evidence". They were both written by man. God did not magically make the first Bible appear out of thin air.

By your logic, The Lord of the Rings is evidence that Hobbits exist.

How many times do people need to say this? The Bible was written and edited by MAN. There are parts of the Bible that were omitted by EDITORS. There is no evidence to support the existence of God. Period.

If you wanna show me some real evidence and prove me wrong, go ahead. Just don't quote some bullshit from the Bible that can be interpreted in many, many different ways and that was written by man.

Don't say shit about evidence when the whole system of organized religion is based on faith alone.

I dare say he could cite non-biblical evidence simply by pointing all the various 'miracles' that have been reported.

Then someone says ''Prove It's God'' and we're stuck for a week or two.

There is no difference. They are both fiction fairy tales. Stories about God is not "evidence". They were both written by man. God did not magically make the first Bible appear out of thin air.

By your logic, The Lord of the Rings is evidence that Hobbits exist.

How many times do people need to say this? The Bible was written and edited by MAN. There are parts of the Bible that were omitted by EDITORS. There is no evidence to support the existence of God. Period.

If you wanna show me some real evidence and prove me wrong, go ahead. Just don't quote some bullshit from the Bible that can be interpreted in many, many different ways and that was written by man.

Don't say shit about evidence when the whole system of organized religion is based on faith alone.


I did not say that the Bible itself was evidence. I will agree that the Bible was written by man, especially in the New Testament, which is comprised of mostly letters that were written back and forth. Some evidence exists in the Bible, but not a lot, and even then it was not what I was referring to. Plus I have neither the time or the energy to get into full detail and explain the vast amounts of evidence that contradicts your statements. Just Google it.

cite your evidence

If you truly believed in God, you wouldn't rely solely on scientific evidence to prove the message that He is trying to get to you. You would see evidence in everyday life. But if you don't believe, there is scientific and metaphorical evidence to show that our world is a product of intelligent design. Did you know that evolution is mentioned various times in the New Testament?

there is scientific and metaphorical evidence to show that our world is a product of intelligent design.

What, do you think that's definitive enough for anyone here? Did you not expect someone to quote this and ask for an example of such evidence?

At the very least, point out some scientific evidence that the world and it's inhabitants were designed by a higher intelligence.

I don't know what you mean by metaphorical evidence. Care to clarify that as well?

Are you trolling now? I'm bad at this...

If you truly believed in God, you wouldn't rely solely on scientific evidence to prove the message that He is trying to get to you.

What other "evidence" is there? If others can experience through their senses as well, then Science can test it. If they cannot, then it's not evidence. Your own personal experiences are not evidence of anything - certainly not to another party that did not experience it themselves.


But if you don't believe, there is scientific and metaphorical evidence to show that our world is a product of intelligent design.

Really? Show it. It would be great if you make a new thread about it, as we haven't had a thread about ID in a long time.


Did you know that evolution is mentioned various times in the New Testament?

You mean some verses mention some sort of natural/artificial selection in crops - something which was know long before the theory of evolution and long before the bible - or some verses that people interpret as talking about evolution - like many interpret others as talking about aliens, multiple gods, or no gods at all. Definitely not anything close to the scientific theory of evolution.

Really? Show it. It would be great if you make a new thread about it, as we haven't had a thread about ID in a long time.


Here are some good sites, just use Google if you are interested in this sort of topic:

http://www.doesgodexist.org
http://www.allaboutgod.com/does-god-exist.htm
http://www.wie.org/j11/goswami.asp


I don't know what you mean by metaphorical evidence. Care to clarify that as well?


Maybe "metaphorical" was not the correct terminology. What I mean by metaphorical evidence is that things happen such as "miracles" that many people consider coincidental, or concrete if you will. However there are other abstract possibilities that could explain the event that many people tend to look over. It isn't really evidence, but it fits the context of the evidence that is present, or missing evidence of a contradicting story.

For example, if the police find a body in the bottom of a lake with a bullet hole in his head, they are going to know right away that he didn't drown to death, and that he was murdered and disposed of in the lake. It also works the other way around. If a rumor is going around about a guy who was shot in the head by the mafia and disposed of in a lake, and the police find his body with no bullet holes, you have no proof he was shot.

It's not my burden to support your claims. You made a claim, and it's up to you to support it. If you don't want to, fine, but then please don't make it in the first place. Asking me to use google is not a way to substantiate anything; it's a way for me to do your work for you.

While I appreciate the links, they too don't link to anything directly. I could spend weeks just trying to find the supposed evidence you claim exists, only to find out later that you were speaking of something else.

For example, is this article the supposed evidence you speak of? (http://www.allaboutcreation.org/does-god-exist.htm)

Isn't incest pretty much taboo in Religion? How did we all come from Adam and Eve if there was NO inbreeding.

You have 0 good arguments, well done, you made yourself look like a moron.

Even if there is an intelligent designer, your argument doesn't prove him as omnipotent and all-powerful.

Do fairies and goblins not exist? Are you sure? Because there are several series of books written by J.R.R. Tolkien that says they do...

The books surely exist, because I have copies of them on my bookshelf and I am eyeballing them right now. The books exist, therefore the content inside must exist as well.

See how silly that is?

The ideas and concepts of the book exist in the minds and hearts of it's millions of fans, adding to the aggregating ideas and concepts already influencing and contributing to the choices and actions they take.

Please tell how something controls the entire universe yet doesn't have all the control in the universe?

(Even if you doubt the Designer's current Presence, the Laws are solid - governing every reaction that would have taken place from the beginning of existence; thus all existence is under the control of the Designer, even if it's only the Cause)

I believe having control over every minute detail in all of existence is THE qualification for omnipotence...

Mmm feeding the troll...

It's really not fucking worth it.

OP= Ranting of a complete fucking idiot.

Mmm feeding the troll...

It's really not fucking worth it.

If you feed them Truth, they won't eat it, and someone else may have a meal waiting...

The ideas and concepts of the book exist in the minds and hearts of it's millions of fans, adding to the aggregating ideas and concepts already influencing and contributing to the choices and actions they take.

But should the idea and concepts of goblins and fairies permeate every waking moment of the lives of those who enjoy such fiction? No. Should we weave together the telling-of-stories with the actual experiences of expressing reality-bound anecdotes and lessons of life until the line separating fantasy from reality is a grey and fuzzy one? No.

We have the capacity to call into reality metaphors, comparisons and abstract illustrations to help us convey to each other the experiences we can all simultaneously imagine into existence in order to utilize our vast imaginations and hone our abilities to learn lessons from past experience.

Using fables and fictional stories to pass on this message with the intent of sharing intelligence with the rest of the world isn't that dangerous, really - but smudging the clearly defined lines of fiction/non-fiction can be highly counterproductive, especially when those we hoped to affect by sharing these stories decide that fantasy is much more appealing than reality, thus missing the overall message in it's entirety. For what good is it to learn about the trials and tribulations of the human predicament if you're going to shelter yourself inside a fantasy world, where applying these lessons won't positively impact the existence you are bound to in reality?

If Christianity isn't right then what is? Do those other loser religions really seem true at all no but Christianity does. What seems more believable God and the bible or some chinese crap where you worship a dragon

If Christianity isn't right then what is? Do those other loser religions really seem true at all no but Christianity does. What seems more believable God and the bible or some chinese crap where you worship a dragon

In the words of chandler "How do you not fall down more?"

If Christianity isn't right then what is? Do those other loser religions really seem true at all no but Christianity does. What seems more believable God and the bible or some chinese crap where you worship a dragon

^ This is the epitome of ignorance at its highest form.

I know you're trolling, but I'll try and respond as if you aren't.

Why do people have the need to believe anything at all? Fear of death? Probably.

Why not look for evidence of your god instead of blindly following whatever anyone tells you? Its fucking brainwash. If your god gave you your life and body then wouldn't it be logical that he wants you to use the brain that he gave you to figure out the meaning of existence for yourself? (oh yeah, religious nuts don't believe in logic)

He may exist he may not, but I really doubt that its possible that anyone on Earth knows who it is. And yes, I think a dragon is a more plausible god than some old man in the clouds that created the planet in 7 days 5000 years ago.
Especially, when there is proof that the Earth is billions of years old. We at least have real life "dragons". I have yet to see a real life angel or whatever bullshit you were lead to believe.

Stop being a coward and use your life to figure out the real meaning instead of worshiping some false idol created to keep people in order thousands of years ago. Faith is bullshit. So is heaven and hell. Use your fucking brain.

If Christianity isn't right then what is? Do those other loser religions really seem true at all no but Christianity does. What seems more believable God and the bible or some chinese crap where you worship a dragon

Think about it, shuu. None of them are actually believable, it's a matter of which one happens to offer you the most comfort and reassurance. Whichever one you play into likely reflects the desire you have inside you to fill certain gaps of understanding with something, rather than nothing.

Most human beings aren't comfortable admitting that there aren't answers to everything, and find a bit of relief in believing that the human condition is something that can be magically "cured" by intervention from outside forces. This gives them hope that they can be fixed, so to speak, and that they won't be stuck in the rut of being trapped in one particularly negative mindset or another.

Most people are willing to believe that their most innermost conflicts and mental predicaments are actually spiritual forces at conflict inside them, vying for dominance. While they're poised and ready to lay in complete submission to whichever "force" happens to be the victor in this battle-for-their-mind, they aren't yet ready to be completely, unabashedly honest with themselves and admit that the propensity to practice what they consider Good or Evil is dependent on absolutely no spiritual forces whatsoever, but merely the by-product of the big organ encased in their head that gives them the feeling of being purposeful and special, the desire to be appreciated, and accepted. If we're slaves to anything, it's to our own emotions. I personally don't believe that my emotions are anything more than reactions to the external stimuli from the world outside my mind. I personally do believe that I can, at least on some level, harness these emotions and shape them into what I hope gives me the best life experience I could possibly wish for both myself and how I interact with others.

People who are completely steeped in religious faith fail to recognize the innate ability all human animals possess at taking subjective experience and assigning values to it that shape the face of the persona that we present to the outside world. They are shrouded in the assumption that what we do in this world is pre-determined and destined by a supernatural order, whose job it is to make sure that mercy, justice and order is present in a cruel, chaotic and unjust environment. They believe that without this supernatural force guiding the Universe into an ordered affair of occurrences and divine law, that there is no hope to be had, nothing to live for if not to serve a Higher Power. All the while, forgetting that the Highest Power they'll ever get to experience as a living human being is the ability to find in themselves more good, than bad. The ability to find a reason to keep on keeping on, when there seemingly is none to be found at first glance. Finding this joy de vivre is usually a lifetime-in-the-making for most folks, but is the ultimate goal in life NOT supposed to be a challenging one?

Being inspired is one thing. Being tethered to the belief that you are mentally incompetent and completely incapable of formulating your own value system that is in relative harmony with the value systems of others is just unnecessary, in my opinion. Studying religion for the purpose of gleaning some insight into how our ancient ancestors came to get a grip on their own morality is alright, but it seems like interpreting their methods to be the only path to greater awareness and understanding is just robbing yourself of all the other insights that have more recently become available to us.

But should the idea and concepts of goblins and fairies permeate every waking moment of the lives of those who enjoy such fiction? No. Should we weave together the telling-of-stories with the actual experiences of expressing reality-bound anecdotes and lessons of life until the line separating fantasy from reality is a grey and fuzzy one? No.

I agree

We have the capacity to call into reality metaphors, comparisons and abstract illustrations to help us convey to each other the experiences we can all simultaneously imagine into existence in order to utilize our vast imaginations and hone our abilities to learn lessons from past experience.

We can get together and think of a certain concept that can be used to help make the future you desire out of an event in the past, by using an idea of a fictional or non fictional story in a way that is helpful in reality.
I agree.


Using fables and fictional stories to pass on this message with the intent of sharing intelligence with the rest of the world isn't that dangerous, really - but smudging the clearly defined lines of fiction/non-fiction can be highly counterproductive, especially when those we hoped to affect by sharing these stories decide that fantasy is much more appealing than reality, thus missing the overall message in it's entirety.
For what good is it to learn about the trials and tribulations of the human predicament if you're going to shelter yourself inside a fantasy world, where applying these lessons won't positively impact the existence you are bound to in reality?
I think that the most important message that we can glean from fictional tails is the power of thoughts, ideas, the mind, and how our belief's/thoughts/ideas can effect our reality.
To think that a book written thousands of years ago has all the thoughts that God wants you to think is a ridiculously closed minded way to be. I say keep on finding new thoughts, fiction or non, knowing not to hide behind these thoughts but to apply them with your already vast field of knowledge, embracing them with your being.

since when were the abilities of our consciousness proof for or against the idea of a god. we are the universe thinking of itself. i believe the universe will always continue to manipulate its matter in new ways, throughout time and space.

i believe the universe will always continue to manipulate its matter in new ways

You speak of the universe like it's a conscious entity :)

edit: oops i may have misunderstood your point

I haven't read the bible, but doesn't it say we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, correct?

Also, christians do not beleive in evolution, correct?

This is insane, as there is already proof of evolution from the time of the bible to todays world (considering we all came from Adam and Eve). Why do you think there are different races around the world, generally speaking blacks are black because their skin evolved or adapted to the climate they were in (consider a little pasty gingerhaired boy in the middle of the african sun- wouldn't last too long). The chinese have squinty eyes because, I don't know, it's hard to fucking see in China?

Well, the point is, IF we all came from adam and eve, then the theory of evolution is proved because of all the different races around the world. They have adapted to their climate, surroundings etc

So, in conclusion, if you believe we all come from Adam and Eve, but not in evolution- your an ignorant twit.

Macroevolution=/=Microevolution

One is disputed, the other isn't. Look them up.

You mean disputed by Creationists.

You mean disputed by Creationists.

Nah man, disputed by the super-lizards of Omicron-Persei 8.

Nah man, disputed by the super-lizards of Omicron-Persei 8.

So, are these lizards your God?

So, are these lizards your God?

'Twas sarcasm. Who the fuck else would be disputing macroevolution?

Well, creationists would say it is disputed even among Scientists... Hence why it's important to make the distinction.

'Twas sarcasm. Who the fuck else would be disputing macroevolution?

Who knows? There's a lot of dipshits out there, yourself included.

I haven't read the bible, but doesn't it say we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, correct?

Also, christians do not beleive in evolution, correct?

This is insane, as there is already proof of evolution from the time of the bible to todays world (considering we all came from Adam and Eve). Why do you think there are different races around the world, generally speaking blacks are black because their skin evolved or adapted to the climate they were in (consider a little pasty gingerhaired boy in the middle of the african sun- wouldn't last too long). The chinese have squinty eyes because, I don't know, it's hard to fucking see in China?

Well, the point is, IF we all came from adam and eve, then the theory of evolution is proved because of all the different races around the world. They have adapted to their climate, surroundings etc

So, in conclusion, if you believe we all come from Adam and Eve, but not in evolution- your an ignorant twit.

Since when does a functional relationship with the Spirit require you to believe scientific inquiry to be useless and automatically wrong? The Book says all manner of blasphemies will be forgiven except blasphemy of the Spirit itself. You can believe the universe came from a bowl of soup if you fucking want to, and still be Christian...(btw, Christian refers to one who has a functioning relationship with the Christ [which is the Spirit that Jesus possessed, not he himself]). It really helps to argue against spirituality if you've actually practiced it in your life...oh wait, if you've done that, then you'd probably have noticed that it is REAL!

Who knows? There's a lot of dipshits out there, yourself included.

Just because you couldn't understand a verbal twist doesn't mean you have to be an asshole to the person who didn't make it obvious enough for you to understand.

^ No, you're a dipshit because you're bitching about sarcasm when it was fairly obvious I was being sarcastic myself. Nothing was clever at all about your "verbal twist". You're not impressing anyone.

^ No, you're a dipshit because you're bitching about sarcasm when it was fairly obvious I was being sarcastic myself. Nothing was clever at all about your "verbal twist". You're not impressing anyone.

Last time I checked, one represented true curiosity by :confused:, which was the icon your post had. You're not fooling anybody.

Last time I checked, one represented true curiosity by :confused:, which was the icon your post had. You're not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. The question you should try to answer is "Are you fooling yourself?"

I'm not trying to fool anyone. The question you should try to answer is "Are you fooling yourself?"

*ponders*

Of course it has a 'creator', but that creator does not need to be of any level of intellect. That creator does not need to be a 'living being'.

Cause, effect.

Since when does a functional relationship with the Spirit require you to believe scientific inquiry to be useless and automatically wrong?

Science says "A spirit lacks any evidence whatsoever, so we MUST assume it to be false" means science is useless and wrong to you in regards to the spirit, if you choose to believe in the spirit.

Science says "A mortal man who has been dead for three days CANNOT come back to life" and you choose to disregard that as well. So your beliefs not only fly directly in the face of convential wisdom and science they also baffle common fucking sense.

You DO reject scientific inquiry and consider them to be useless and wrong, the moment you choose to believe in an invisible man in the clouds, talking snakes, evil fruit and zombies. You reject science where it upsets your meme just as intended by the meme's design.

^ Theism=/=Christianity

Know it.

^ Theism=/=Christianity

Know it.

For your sake I suppose I could interject mythology of other religions in place of "evil fruit, and zombie men" OR you could understand this:

I use the mythology of the christian religion b/c it is what I know the best and what most others in my country know best.

I think you know that as I HAVE said it before, though perhaps not to you....so try not to forget b/c I grow tired of repeating it.

Know it.

Nor does Theism=Religion. For example, secular catholics and a good deal of Jesuits. Arguing against mythology and superstition is different from arguing against the concept of a God.

Where did Hex say anything that could possibly mythological? Do you know his definition of "The Spirit"?

I think not.

No I do not know him personally I was merely responding to what he said. Which is this:

Since when does a functional relationship with the Spirit require you to believe scientific inquiry to be useless and automatically wrong? The Book says all manner of blasphemies will be forgiven except blasphemy of the Spirit itself. You can believe the universe came from a bowl of soup if you fucking want to, and still be Christian...(btw, Christian refers to one who has a functioning relationship with the Christ [which is the Spirit that Jesus possessed, not he himself]). It really helps to argue against spirituality if you've actually practiced it in your life...oh wait, if you've done that, then you'd probably have noticed that it is REAL!

So I responded assuming he believes in spirits (ascertained from this post preceding my own) with this: Science says "A spirit lacks any evidence whatsoever, so we MUST assume it to be false" means science is useless and wrong to you in regards to the spirit, if you choose to believe in the spirit.

Since he mentioned the book, and christ I decided to also speak about how you must forego science to believe in the mythos of christ.

Do you need any further clarification, or are you done interrupting me?

Arguing against mythology and superstition is different from arguing against the concept of a God.

So different, yet so much the same! Part of the reason some atheists don't put stock in the concept of a God is because it's so similar to mythology and because embracing the idea at all relies heavily on holding many superstitions.

Interrupting. Lol. Keep on rolling, partner. Just keep on rolling. *shakes head*

So different, yet so much the same! Part of the reason some atheists don't put stock in the concept of a God is because it's so similar to mythology and because embracing the idea at all relies heavily on holding many superstitions.

Could you name some of those superstitions then? Using God only in the minimalist sense of the word, I'm having a hard time coming up with some of my own.

The newest edition of Oxford English Dictionary defines the word myth as follows:

1a. "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures , which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon"

There are several other uses of the term myth (thus mythology) but I think for this argument the very first definition is the one we are looking for.

Even in the minimalist sense; god is a supernatural being, force, or creature thus falling under the definition as myth.

The key to your argument is you throwing in superstistions alongside mythology. I was speaking fully of mythology and will not entertain this new idea you have inserted alongside of mythology.

Hence why I quoted AF and not you.

Hence why I quoted AF and not you.

Damn what is that like?

Someone speaking on behalf of someone else you were addressing?

Still my point on mythology and god is clear. AF feel free to use it.

:)

Could you name some of those superstitions then? Using God only in the minimalist sense of the word, I'm having a hard time coming up with some of my own.

Tell you what, let's compare definitions and then we can draw parallels from there:

Superstition: A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Here's a common superstitious tune: "Our fate is written in the stars" ... a theist is singing the tune of: "our fate is written by an invisible, supernatural entity".

If you assume that rubbing a rabbit's foot brings you good luck, even though the rabbit's foot is just a ... rabbit's foot, incapable of affecting major changes in your circumstance - that's superstitious.

If you assume that having a mental ties with a supernatural unseen force who also just so happens to wield command the entire Universe - that's superstitious.

"Garlic protects from evil spirits and vampires" is a superstitious statement.

"God protects from evil spirits and sin" is a superstitious statement.


Still my point on mythology and god is clear.

Clear as fresh spring rainwater, yessir.

I would say that I found it surprising when I discovered astrology was once a field within science, but the similarity between it and macroscopic physics is far too great. After all, both are believers in a causally determined system of forces which hold the key to accurate calculations of the future if comprehended. But the historians of science, on the other hand, probably weren’t too happy to discover that it was astrologists who first documented astronomical movements, such as those of the moon and the stars. To these historians it was a law that science had to be painted as a gradual accumulation of ontological fact by individuals like Newton and Lavoisier, whereas the likes of astrology and religion had to be documented as non-scientific interruptions of the progress toward truth. To discover that science gave rise to institutions and theories as superstitious as those of the church meant they either had to accept this or rewrite the image of science that the Enlightenment put forward. Therefore, today we have this kind of bungled view of science: we cannot say whether a theory useful for prediction is true or false, only that it hasn’t been falsified, but yet there’s still this sense that the scientific method (it should be methods, actually) is the way to some deep underlying reality, even though history shows many times that it is otherwise, such as the case where Copernicus broke many scientific rules of guidance. Let’s be sceptics, but let’s be believers too.

I would say that I found it surprising when I discovered astrology was once a field within science, but the similarity between it and macroscopic physics is far too great. After all, both are believers in a causally determined system of forces which hold the key to accurate calculations of the future if comprehended. But the historians of science, on the other hand, probably weren’t too happy to discover that it was astrologists who first documented astronomical movements, such as those of the moon and the stars. To these historians it was a law that science had to be painted as a gradual accumulation of ontological fact by individuals like Newton and Lavoisier, whereas the likes of astrology and religion had to be documented as non-scientific interruptions of the progress toward truth. To discover that science gave rise to institutions and theories as superstitious as those of the church meant they either had to accept this or rewrite the image of science that the Enlightenment put forward. Therefore, today we have this kind of bungled view of science: we cannot say whether a theory useful for prediction is true or false, only that it hasn’t been falsified, but yet there’s still this sense that the scientific method (it should be methods, actually) is the way to some deep underlying reality, even though history shows many times that it is otherwise, such as the case where Copernicus broke many scientific rules of guidance. Let’s be sceptics, but let’s be believers too.

I'm going to dumb it down some, you mind?

Seems Hare is reminding us that once upon a time, science and pseudo-science were once all in the same. Until the Enlightenment re-wrote history to separate fact from fiction, categorizing documented representations of any field of discovery was for the most part a disorganized system.

We decided that there really needed to be a definitive separation of such discoveries in order to remove all the fluff from the fact and get a clear picture of our natural universe without muddying up the details with superstitious lore and myth.

Hare is suggesting that in doing so, there has since been a "bungled" view of science, as modern times refuses to acknowledge that some of what we now consider myth and folklore was once the humble beginnings of the scientific method we adhere to today.

Because modern scientists will accept working theories these days up until the point they are falsified, Hare believes this might be a dishonest little trick we're playing with ourselves that paints scientific inquiry and acceptance of current, non-falsified theories as something resembling faith, so therefore scientists should stop being the pot that calls the kettle black when they giggle behind closed doors at people who believe the natural order of the Universe is all structured by an invisible, unproven God-figure, an idea that requires a whole lot of faith in a theory that cannot really ever be put to the test, so to speak.

In short, he is putting forth that those who rigorously defend the scientific method are no better than those who defend their beliefs that God is the prime Mover & Shaker of all natural things. In his view, science is useful, but not if you blindly adhere to it, lest it becomes superstitious to a point.

But isn't that kind of an unfair comparison, since there is a HUGE fundamental difference between embracing religious faith and "trusting" the scientific method? Science is ever-changing, willing to make and break laws that were written in the past in favor of new, improved theories that could very well quickly dismiss everything they once subscribed to as scientific truth. Science is flexible like that. Science, unlike religion, isn't written into stone tablets that diverse groups of thinkers can interpret and cling to unwaveringly for centuries, defending to the literal death core beliefs that are never to be re-examined, because that would be ... blasphemous!

Pfft.

Hare is suggesting that in doing so, there has since been a "bungled" view of science, as modern times refuses to acknowledge that some of what we now consider myth and folklore was once the humble beginnings of the scientific method we adhere to today.

That’s not what I said at all. Rather, I said that early historians of science presented science as a gradual process, coming ever closer to acquiring an accurate representation of what is ontologically the case. They documented scientific discoveries believed in their age as the only science, represented them as the discovery of an enigmatic individual, and accepted their apparent methods as the scientific method. All else was ignored or recorded as myth and superstition which hindered scientific progress.

This stayed the common view until the 20th century, when a new generation, consisting of historians such as Koyré and Kuhn, quite rightly questioned this image. The deeper they looked into the historical records, the harder they found it to record scientific achievements as the work of a single man. Furthermore, they found that the scientific methods not only produced accepted theories, but also much that the old historians would classify as myths and superstitious beliefs. The implication was that the image of science as progressive was faulty. Scientists, positivists, historians and philosophers such as Sir Karl Popper came to see scientific theories as part of a shifting worldview. It could no longer be said that physics was an accurate description of the world, or that a theory was true or false. For some, you could only say a theory wasn’t falsified, for others, that it was acceptable or unacceptable in a given paradigm (to an extent, I fall into the latter category). Whether you like it or not, astrology was one time considered valid science (even Aristotle practiced it), as were many other questionable notions over the years, such as vitalism and the ether.

Now I find this very strange tension going on between the Enlightenment image of science and the modern image of science. People like BrokeProphet seem to really want to hold onto the Enlightenment image, asserting scientific theories as ontological facts and presenting science as the yardstick against which all else must be measured, even though they say certainty isn’t possible. But at the same time, when questioned, they disguise themselves as mere humble admirers of science, understanding the problems of induction, demarcation, incommensurability, and “methodological anarchism”, etc. etc. But really, science has far more many problems than the quasi-Enlightenment image so prevalent admits or is willing to see.

To make myself perfectly clear, I am not against science, so much as I am against images of science. The general populous, for example, often have a very simplistic image of the shift from the geocentric model to the heliocentric model. For them it is a simple tale of science vs. religion, but historians have known for years that this is far too inaccurate. Aristotelian physics had a long tradition, many adherents and a practical applicability. Galileo, on the other hand, used untested instruments and rhetoric to persuade scientists to accept his theories. Furthermore, at the time there were many states of relativity, where either theory was acceptable (scientists dropped a brick from a window to show the earth does not move, Galileo gave the example of two people throwing a ball on a moving boat to show that it does, but his required a force with little to no evidence). Scientists were both naturally deeply suspicious and very committed to Aristotelian physics. This commitment, as in all scientific periods, is deep-seated and indicates that science is far more conservative than you realize. Fundamental assumptions about ontology, scientific practice and what is the case are presented in education, which allows all scientists to get on with esoteric at the cost of dismissing given problems and theories as anomalies or nonsense (Einstein was not the only scientist uncomfortable with quantum mechanics). Religion may be more conservative by degree, but the Catholic church did eventually accept a form of evolution.

To make myself perfectly clear, I am not against science, so much as I am against images of science.

Could your personal observation concerning your disdain for the "images" of science be considered an ideological weapon of your own that you're brandishing?

I'm sorry, what?

OP:
All those things were created by humans you fuckwit. You can't compare how humans manipulate matter to how God supposedly created the universe. And you have no idea how evolution works at all.

That’s not what I said at all. Rather, I said that early historians of science presented science as a gradual process, coming ever closer to acquiring an accurate representation of what is ontologically the case. They documented scientific discoveries believed in their age as the only science, represented them as the discovery of an enigmatic individual, and accepted their apparent methods as the scientific method. All else was ignored or recorded as myth and superstition which hindered scientific progress.

This stayed the common view until the 20th century, when a new generation, consisting of historians such as Koyré and Kuhn, quite rightly questioned this image. The deeper they looked into the historical records, the harder they found it to record scientific achievements as the work of a single man. Furthermore, they found that the scientific methods not only produced accepted theories, but also much that the old historians would classify as myths and superstitious beliefs. The implication was that the image of science as progressive was faulty. Scientists, positivists, historians and philosophers such as Sir Karl Popper came to see scientific theories as part of a shifting worldview. It could no longer be said that physics was an accurate description of the world, or that a theory was true or false. For some, you could only say a theory wasn’t falsified, for others, that it was acceptable or unacceptable in a given paradigm (to an extent, I fall into the latter category). Whether you like it or not, astrology was one time considered valid science (even Aristotle practiced it), as were many other questionable notions over the years, such as vitalism and the ether.

Now I find this very strange tension going on between the Enlightenment image of science and the modern image of science. People like BrokeProphet seem to really want to hold onto the Enlightenment image, asserting scientific theories as ontological facts and presenting science as the yardstick against which all else must be measured, even though they say certainty isn’t possible. But at the same time, when questioned, they disguise themselves as mere humble admirers of science, understanding the problems of induction, demarcation, incommensurability, and “methodological anarchism”, etc. etc. But really, science has far more many problems than the quasi-Enlightenment image so prevalent admits or is willing to see.

To make myself perfectly clear, I am not against science, so much as I am against images of science. The general populous, for example, often have a very simplistic image of the shift from the geocentric model to the heliocentric model. For them it is a simple tale of science vs. religion, but historians have known for years that this is far too inaccurate. Aristotelian physics had a long tradition, many adherents and a practical applicability. Galileo, on the other hand, used untested instruments and rhetoric to persuade scientists to accept his theories. Furthermore, at the time there were many states of relativity, where either theory was acceptable (scientists dropped a brick from a window to show the earth does not move, Galileo gave the example of two people throwing a ball on a moving boat to show that it does, but his required a force with little to no evidence). Scientists were both naturally deeply suspicious and very committed to Aristotelian physics. This commitment, as in all scientific periods, is deep-seated and indicates that science is far more conservative than you realize. Fundamental assumptions about ontology, scientific practice and what is the case are presented in education, which allows all scientists to get on with esoteric at the cost of dismissing given problems and theories as anomalies or nonsense (Einstein was not the only scientist uncomfortable with quantum mechanics). Religion may be more conservative by degree, but the Catholic church did eventually accept a form of evolution.

I'm not sure I understand the argument, especially when you try to make an assessment of science based off of early scientists and recent theoretical science. Almost all scientists today would not consider the Copenhagen interpretation or string theory granite ideas. It's also pretty established that early methodology of scientists was questionable at best. But that's why we've developed metrics for science or at least how predictive science can be through the field of statistics.

Science is only as good as it is predictive. Philosophically, we really can't have absolute truth past Descartes' cogito, but in practice science is extremely predictive of natural events...and that's what makes it useful. If Newtonian physics are predictive of how events will occur 100% of the time, arguing whether or not it's a theory that represents truth is quibbling. Ultimately the theory has predictive use. There is little gained and much lost by doubting something that predictive.

I've never denied that sciences have produced useful predictive tools.

I've never denied that sciences have produced useful predictive tools.

Would you say religion is equally useful at producing useful predictive tools?

That's like asking if science is good at poetry.

That's like asking if science is good at poetry.

Well, I will answer your question.

I do not think science is very good at poerty. Certainly not as good as say religion is. Just my opinion.

Now will you answer mine?

Someone I work with told me that the Bible is wrong because it is scientifically impossible for the universe to have been created in 6 days, as mentioned in the book of Genesis. I have a problem with this statement. "Days" could not have been referring to the 24 hour cycle that we know of today, I mean, the Gregorian calendar was not devised until 1582AD, which was long after Jesus' lifetime. Doesn't this mean that the term "day", as used in the book of Genesis when God created the universe and all of its inhabitants, could mean any length of time?

I'm sorry, what?

In this thread (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9397905&postcount=19), when I asked you why you said that you felt scientific progress and the rationality of man was nonsense, you replied:

I am not sure if progress is actual. Often it seems to be little more than an ideological weapon.

You gave us a short lesson in this thread about ancient scientific methods vs. modern scientific methods, and how presently, people like Broke Prophet blindly accepted science as the definitive truth, thereby confusing fact vs. theory (though I'm sure he knows the difference).

You went on to say that you were distrustful of the "image" people have of science. You said that the general populous has a very simplistic view of science, and went on to school us further in the differences between the ancient geocentric model and the modern heliocentric model, as if we had been confusing the two all along.

It seems that you're asserting that modern atheists who have a great deal of confidence in the progress of modern science are mistaken, confounded and a bit misinformed if we put much stock in it. Instead, we would be better off to take your philosophical stance, which is that scientific progress ... isn't really progress at all.

So I asked: Might that be your own ideological weapon that you're pushing here?

You really don't understand what I'm saying.

Someone I work with told me that the Bible is wrong because it is scientifically impossible for the universe to have been created in 6 days, as mentioned in the book of Genesis. I have a problem with this statement. "Days" could not have been referring to the 24 hour cycle that we know of today, I mean, the Gregorian calendar was not devised until 1582AD, which was long after Jesus' lifetime. Doesn't this mean that the term "day", as used in the book of Genesis when God created the universe and all of its inhabitants, could mean any length of time?

Um... the concept of days has been around for a long, long time. You can find it in places in the Bible other than the first chapter of Genesis. Look at the story of Noah. Years were around too, although they weren't quite the same as today's years based on the Gregorian calendar, which you mentioned. I think the purpose of months and years was probably originally to help them keep track of the seasons.

By the way, the Jewish day started at sunset, and ended the next sunset. 12 night hours and 12 day hours.

Edit: http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_TC.HTM

A link to a website for you to read.

Someone I work with told me that the Bible is wrong because it is scientifically impossible for the universe to have been created in 6 days, as mentioned in the book of Genesis. I have a problem with this statement. "Days" could not have been referring to the 24 hour cycle that we know of today, I mean, the Gregorian calendar was not devised until 1582AD, which was long after Jesus' lifetime. Doesn't this mean that the term "day", as used in the book of Genesis when God created the universe and all of its inhabitants, could mean any length of time?

http://www.evilbible.com/a_day_is_a_day.htm

Besides, to be historically and geologically accurate, each day would have to be more than 2 billion years! It wasn't until the last 2 billion that animals, plants, and humans appeared.

BP, "Is science good at poetry"? was rhetorical. It clearly isn't, and religion isn't good at making scientific assumptions, but the positions reverse when you apply them. Religion is good at poetry, science is good at explaining stuff. I think H_G meant to say that they are in different realms and you shouldn't discount all of religion just because it can't make predictions the same way you shouldn't discount all of science because it can't make poetry.

There is still another problem. The Bible has asserted that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Science also evidences this, and the proof can be seen here:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-age-science.htm

Click on the link, and scroll down past the video links. Start reading where it says Significance of Issue. Also I have proof that the Bible clearly defines day as a complete Earth rotation, rather, a 24 hour period. This can be seen below:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp

But, I am still confused. Assuming the scientific evidence of the earth's age I provided is correct, and the Bible clearly refers to "day" as a 24 hour period, what about life forms? I was also told that life forms have taken millions if not billions of years to advance from single-celled organisms to where we are now.

There is still another problem. The Bible has asserted that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Science also evidences this, and the proof can be seen here:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-age-science.htm

Click on the link, and scroll down past the video links. Start reading where it says Significance of Issue.

It seems you've gone into some of the Creationist literature... the page I see here is an example of quote mining: taking individual quotes from different people in a way that doesn't give the whole picture.

"Radiometric Dating Involves At Least Eight Untestable Assumptions"

By assumptions, the scientists mean you have to ensure that these conditions have been met, or you will get false data. However, it does not mean that they can't tell whether the assumption is true or not in a particular circumstance (thus, they are not actually untestable). In addition, people doing these measurements can cross-check the data they get by using two or more methods to date the same group of rocks. There are also other ways of seeing if there's been some mistake, dependent on the particular dating method.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

This is something to read about how radiometric dating works, and some of the misconceptions put forth by those who believe in the young earth creation. I've read the entire thing a while back, and I'll go through it and read it again.

"GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENON...RAPID!"

The laying down of rocks occurs at variable rates. It all depends on the features of the terrain. For example, a flood plain will have quick deposition due to the fact that it's a flood plain -- during heavy rains, the river overflows its banks, depositing sediment in the surrounding plain. River deltas are another area of heavy deposition. Dryer areas usually have less deposition and more erosion.

"Incredibly Preserved Fossils"

Well-preserved fossils are very rare... they are fortunate happenings for paleontologists. There are certain conditions that have to be met for an animal to fossilize. Mainly, it has to be protected from decay and survive geologic processes. Being buried quickly, and having hard body parts like a shell or skeleton helps a lot. If minerals like calcite can seep in through the soil (with the help of water) and be deposited in the bones, it will make it much more resistant to decay and weathering. This is how most fossils are made.

Also I have proof that the Bible clearly defines day as a complete Earth rotation, rather, a 24 hour period. This can be seen below:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp

Okay. I'm not going to bother with reading it, but it's what I think.

But, I am still confused. Assuming the scientific evidence of the earth's age I provided is correct, and the Bible clearly refers to "day" as a 24 hour period, what about life forms? I was also told that life forms have taken millions if not billions of years to advance from single-celled organisms to where we are now.

The earth is not 10,000 years old. It is around 4.55 billion years old. The universe is even older. Its age is more tentative, though, at somewhere from 11 billion to 20 billion years. WMAP estimated it to be about 13.2 billion years old.

Do you know how big the Milky Way galaxy is? It is around 100,000 light-years across. That means that light from one end of the galaxy would take about 100,000 years to reach the other end of the galaxy (light travels a little more slowly when going through a medium such as interstellar dust). When we look at other stars, we are looking thousands of years into the past.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1383

Here is an article about a star in our galaxy 20,000 light years away from earth.

And of course, there are probably billions of galaxies out there, all of them at very great distances. The furthest known objects are quasars, and they can be billions of light years away.

There are a few ways they can measure these great distances. Parallax is difficult to use for all but the closest objects, but the Hipparcos satellite measured the distances of 100,000 stars this way. Another way they measure distances is by looking at the red-shift: how much the light has stretched since it was emitted by the star. As the space in our universe expands, it stretches light travelling through it. It is something like the dopplar effect. There are some other ways of finding the distances of celestial objects but I don't remember the others right now.

Also, please look again at the link I posted earlier.

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_TC.HTM

This explains what the authors of the first chapters of Genesis really meant. I'm sure you will find it interesting.

Do you know how big the Milky Way galaxy is? It is around 100,000 light-years across. That means that light from one end of the galaxy would take about 100,000 years to reach the other end of the galaxy (light travels a little more slowly when going through a medium such as interstellar dust). When we look at other stars, we are looking thousands of years into the past.

I also just wanted to add that our solar system has only been around the block of our milky way galaxy an astounding total of 18 times since the beginning of the universe.

I think people miss the simple fact that the bible was written over a really long period of time by numerous people, long before anything involving science was even thought about in the same sense we can pick apart the things in the bible today. I just don't see why people feel the need to put a divine presense into the bible.

Long post

Excellent job, you do really well tying in all the concepts with such varied examples. If rep still existed...

BP, "Is science good at poetry"? was rhetorical. It clearly isn't, and religion isn't good at making scientific assumptions, but the positions reverse when you apply them. Religion is good at poetry, science is good at explaining stuff. I think H_G meant to say that they are in different realms and you shouldn't discount all of religion just because it can't make predictions the same way you shouldn't discount all of science because it can't make poetry.

No I got it. I said as much. I do not think science is very good at poerty. Certainly not as good as say religion is. Just my opinion. I had already applied the reverse.

I do not discount religion for it's ability to produce poetry or motivating tales....I discount religion for raping science in the name of Christ to produce mutant offspring called "Christian Science". I discount religion for entering the scientific realm and trying to disprove science with Christian Science and failing miserably. The only thing they succeed in is fooling the very naive and very stupid who were probably on their way to a life of sheepdom anyway.

I would say that I found it surprising when I discovered astrology was once a field within science, but the similarity between it and macroscopic physics is far too great. After all, both are believers in a causally determined system of forces which hold the key to accurate calculations of the future if comprehended. But the historians of science, on the other hand, probably weren’t too happy to discover that it was astrologists who first documented astronomical movements, such as those of the moon and the stars. To these historians it was a law that science had to be painted as a gradual accumulation of ontological fact by individuals like Newton and Lavoisier, whereas the likes of astrology and religion had to be documented as non-scientific interruptions of the progress toward truth. To discover that science gave rise to institutions and theories as superstitious as those of the church meant they either had to accept this or rewrite the image of science that the Enlightenment put forward. Therefore, today we have this kind of bungled view of science: we cannot say whether a theory useful for prediction is true or false, only that it hasn’t been falsified, but yet there’s still this sense that the scientific method (it should be methods, actually) is the way to some deep underlying reality, even though history shows many times that it is otherwise, such as the case where Copernicus broke many scientific rules of guidance. Let’s be sceptics, but let’s be believers too.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4561/lexwrong4okdf1.jpg

WRONG

It's been a long time since I've seen Lexx. Canadians have such fucked up sci-fi.

They still play Lexx on Showcase up here, it's awesome. The ship looks like a pair of balls.

Troll!!!