mehh..

[dior paint]

 

[retro23j]

Originally Posted by Sighfur

On a spiritual tip, what do you guys think about the Flower of Life, and the theories behind that?

info?

 

[rashi]

B Smooth. 

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Its funny how these idiots are supposed atheists and spend a good part of their time on Niketalk defending their idiotic views.

This dude sillyputty posts about other topics JUST to meet his quota to be able to talk about HIS favorite subject, atheism, and how flawed and completely wrong it is.

He is seriously a pest and a grievance to the community. He contributes nothing further than his mechanical argument often repeating the same, tired, public school science curriculum terminology in every rebuttal. It's weak, and exposes the shallowness of western education and his own personal intellect.

You and those who think like you are a waste of human intelligence and the epitome of the same hypocrisy you claim to be so critical of by declaring yourself an 'atheist'.

 It makes it even worse when you perceive yourself to be more intelligent than others when you couldn't be MORE wrong.

So why don't you do us all here on NT a favor and kill yourself and find out. Your annoying as hell.

long time coming but dude snapped 

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Its funny how these idiots are supposed atheists and spend a good part of their time on Niketalk defending their idiotic views.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

I like to thank Yahweh for all the success I've had till this point in my life. And to my fellow men who have not experienced the same level of success, tough luck. Everything happens for a reason.

I am a slave to Yahweh and atheists eat children on their spare time and no amount of education, thinking or good deeds can change that.


YAHWEEEEH YAHWEEEEH!!!!

Your a joke. You claim an agnostic point of view and 'we don't know', yet your always on NT fighting the good atheist fight spewing your CRAP, while your native country burns to the ground.

You've got nothing to say about that though do you? Of course not.

You'd rather continue arguing about something you've already determined we don't know exists instead of intelligently discussing what we DO know exists.

Thats why your nothing but a clown. Continue your attempt to mock true belief,  jester. 

LOL @ my country burning to the ground, you mean like those Muslims who burn churches in Nigeria?

Maybe Yahweh will save them

Christmas church bombing in Nigeria, glad my family was safe---Many weren't so lucky

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW? Because it's people like me that are burning churches and slaughtering entire villages of Christians in Nigeria


I don't think you're in  position to say anything about Nigerians, we're the most educated ethnic group in this country--We have a lot of corruption in our Native land which I'm openly critical of but progress is being made

Not sure what this has to do with this debate tho---I mean I could say the same thing about black neighborhoods in America and pretty much every third world country, doesn't make your God any more real than Spiderman

Let's appease BSmooth and change the name of the thread to "Why is there such a disparity in education amongst African Americans in this country"

Everytime this dude sees a religious thread he tries to change the subject--Yo why are you debating religion, let's talk about how black people in America have to struggle GTHOWTBS

YAHHWEEEH, YAHWEEH!!!! I'll stop arguing in these threads when religious idiots stays out of politics and religious people stop committing inhumane acts under the guise of morality----Most importantly when they start respecting my right to worship Satan openly and Spiderman

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Its funny how these idiots are supposed atheists and spend a good part of their time on Niketalk defending their idiotic views.

This dude sillyputty posts about other topics JUST to meet his quota to be able to talk about HIS favorite subject, atheism, and how flawed and completely wrong it is.

He is seriously a pest and a grievance to the community. He contributes nothing further than his mechanical argument often repeating the same, tired, public school science curriculum terminology in every rebuttal. It's weak, and exposes the shallowness of western education and his own personal intellect.

You and those who think like you are a waste of human intelligence and the epitome of the same hypocrisy you claim to be so critical of by declaring yourself an 'atheist'.

 It makes it even worse when you perceive yourself to be more intelligent than others when you couldn't be MORE wrong.

So why don't you do us all here on NT a favor and kill yourself and find out. Your annoying as hell.

long time coming but dude snapped 

His anguish sustains me, you know you won when someone starts telling you to kill yourself or starts wishing death upon you

Very Christ-like


So is BSmooth like the Anti-putty? He posts strong claims like (You're wrong) and posts zero supporting evidence in very few words and just keeps it moving--If I were religious I'd want nothing to do with him, he's like the poster-boy for religious ignorance aka the Bill O Reilly of NT

 

[cap1229]

Originally Posted by rashi

B Smooth. 

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Balance needs to be present. B Smooth is super-God.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRedStorm

Balance needs to be present. B Smooth is super-God.

The Anti-putty has a better ring to it

At least he doesn't beat around the bush and try to use "evidence" like tkthfm does

You're wrong, THE END!!! No walls of text or color coded responses, simplicity at its finest


Anyhow off to read for my exam tomorrow before I end up like BSmooth and Frank Matthews--pray for the kid

 

[mycoldyourdone]

wow @ bsmooth

 

[blazinrook]

in the wise words of Ray J..."Be who you wanna be, love who you wanna love"

 

[41239]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

What will end up being more entertaining is when people of different religions get into a discussion.

doubt it, you're probably assuming its going to be a "my god is better than your god" type of deal but that isnt nearly as frequent as you think, but this is a dead topic, i would think sillyputty and anton are tired of repeating themselves over and over again 

 

[runningfishy]

People have to be more civilized in here.  Topics of discussions are great for everyone, but keep it civilized.  Obviously the points made in reference to science makes a lot more sense, and logical context points to it as being an acceptable explanation for many things.  This is where 'faith' comes in as a weak trump.  Logic doesn't have room for 'faith', and it's like fitting a square peg in a round hole.  You get the idea.

But one thing you folks need to understand is that man kind's ability to rationalize is what separates it from any other animal.  This ability to 'rationalize' is definitely a big part to civilization.

 

[boys noize]

You have to admit, it would be interesting (and entertaining) seeing believers of different religions debate the merits of their own beliefs. I mean, there can only be one true faith right? If the Christian god is real, that invalidates the Hindu gods, the Greek gods, etcetera etcetera. One of the points that has been made before (and one believers kind of just glaze over) is that most, if not all, believers are just like non-believers...with the sole difference being non-believers believe in one less god.

 

[bandit country]

Lolol. This guy B MAD is loading up the carbine and climbing the bell tower like Quasimoto right about now.

 

[sillyputty]

FrankMatthews wrote:

---

sillyputty wrote:

---

Are.



You.




Serious?




Science is not a "thing"...its the pursuit of understanding how something works.




Is the lack of an AIDS vaccine a failing of science?

I guess the introduction of Anti-retrovirals in the mid-90s means NOTHING to you.


We should have thrown our hands up back in the 80s when AIDS exploded (traced actually to the early 1900s in Congo) instead of trying to save lives. Its God's will at that point, right?




There are tons of things in medicine that work that we can't explain...but THAT  DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CANT figure it out sooner or later. We didn't even understand how Gram-Staining literally worked until the late 80s...and we had been using it for close to 100 years to identify and categorize bacteria and other microorganisms.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my response because you basically reiterated what I meant: "There are tons of things in medicine that work that we can't explain...but THAT  DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CANT figure it out sooneror later."  Sums up my exact statement which you questioned my seriousness on.  Maybe "failing" was the wrong word.  It's inability to explain something at a particular point in time due to lack of technology or human brain power doesn't mean that it won't be explainable sooner or later. Exactly.  I'm not advocating whole-heartedly "believing" any and everything just because one day anything could theoretically be proved.  All I'm saying is I would like to keep an open mind to the possibilities.

Keeping and open mind doesn't mean making crap up either. Stop shifting the burden of proof and saying unplausible things.




I don't care fi you want to believe in the craziest thing out there. It doesn't matter until it is proven.




Thats the point.




Being "creative" or having an "open mind" is not a license to MAKE CRAP UP for the sake of doing so. 




"well I believe that we're all on an astral journey to orient our chakras and herp derp etc."....I DO NOT CARE. PROVE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. The only thing proven at that point is that you can speak English...not that you can use it to any benefit. Thats not keeeping an open mind. Thats submitting to a belief before you have any proof of it.

And please don't interpret this to mean that I want to keep open the possibility of some man in the clouds that deserves my worship, or any specific religious doctrine. I am speaking to science in general.  

Science doesn't believe in stuff it can't prove.




If people believe that the Atkins diet works, they should seek to prove its claims or read criticisms of the plan. 




Science is nothing without peer-review and analysis of the results taken by other independent people who want to replicate the results. 

...Try to figure it out?




And what is your fascination with cytochrome C? 





Whats your point?

The point is they have been trying to figure it out for awhile now, the origins of cytochrome C, how the body creates it.
Science can't just figure everything out is what I am getting at( but they will sooner or later, maybe). 

SO, WHAT?!




Dude... you're getting ridiculous at this point. 




Science can't explain something so then science sucks.




When science explains something then you come back with something else we don't understand and start complaining that science doesn't know everything.




IF WE KNEW EVERYTHING IT WOULD NOT BE SCIENCE.

Not saying science
 is wrong or that we should completely abandon it but it points to it's fallibility. 

NOT KNOWING SOMETHING IS NOT A FALLIBILITY.



ITS THAT AN ANSWER HAS NOT BEEN FOUND.

I don't think it's the be all and end all.  
Not to mention it's occasional bias, potential subjectivity, and the fact that it is limited by the human brain's level
 of comprehension.

Poor scientific inquiry does not replace the validity of the claims.



If people lie about their results, their lies get exposed over time when people try to replicate their results or analyze their data.


This is exactly what happened when that guy said vaccines cause autism but was later found to have completely fabricated the entire thing. The truth does come out because of the inherent peer review. 





 

I didn't insult religious people. 




I said that saying "god did it" was lazy and stupid. I didn't call you lazy or stupid. I said the IDEA was lazy and stupid, and I stand by that.



While I completely agree with the idea being lazy and stupid, calling someones ideas lazy and stupid 
is an insult as well. 

Thats your opinion and I wholeheartedly DISagree. You define an insult as something that offends you. What about those things that don't offend you, are those not insults? Remember, your emotions aren't objective assessments of reality. Those are just YOUR subjective bias towards a particular stimulus. 




Its up to you to decide what you get mad at. No one can make you upset more than you will allow them to. 

Additionally, a  factual statement can be an insult. 

THE TRUTH DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS OR EMOTIONS.




I WOULD RATHER CURSE AND SCREAM THE TRUTH THAN TO QUIETLY TELL YOU A LIE.

Above all it is unnecessary to speak
 to people in that manner.  Ultimately that's your judgement call though.

What you deem "necessary" is merely YOUR personal preference, not an objective one. 

If we can't explain something, we say "we don't know"




I don't know why our noses are angled the way they are. But thats not going to stop me from trying to figure it out.




Not being able to explain something doesn't  mean that there is no answer. It just means that you have to keep working until you get it.

Agree with all the above.  Based on your retractment below I think this is resolved.

I didn't "retract" anything. I've been saying this all along. What the living hell have you been reading this entire time?

 





I swear you go out of your way to TRY to make a point... 

I don't understand how the lack of knowledge at one point in time equates to the unknowable...

Not inherently unknowable, unknowable at the time due to our capabilities.  Which I feel 
could apply to some spiritual principles or what are perceived as such.  Again, this 
statement doesn't apply to a man in the clouds or jesus christ, etc...

OK...the word "Could" is not absolute. Its a prediction.



If you make a prediction. PROVE IT.




Stop clinging to "maybes" and start getting to "yes" or "no"




There COULD be a god...and there COULD be a chance my dog faked his death to go lead a secret asian street gang. 




Once you start coming up with "maybes" then anything is possible and nothing could ever be wrong.

Are you going to keep pushing the goal-posts further and further back with each advancement in scientific understanding? When we figure out the next big hurdle will you admit that there is one more thing that we don't understand? Will you just keep saying we don't know this one thing? What will you say when we figure it out?

Shouldn't we keep doing that?  Should there ever come a time when we concede that we know enough?

NO. But making crap up and believing it BEFORE it is proven is intellectually and fundamentally DISHONEST.

  Either there are things we
don't understand (or scientists don't understand) or there aren't.

And?

 I'm not talking about waiting for established scientific fact to be debunked.
I am more referring to the unknowns, the cytochrome C's of the world.

I swear...you really think that because we don't understand where cytochrome c originates that signals a hole in science?



Whats your answer? Spiritual origins? Of a highly conserved sequence of protein that deals as an electron acceptor? Its not that hard to understand if you even have a minimal grasp of cellular respiration. Whats your point?




Why don't you try figuring it out? 




Not having an answer at the moment doesn't mean that science is flawed. There wasn't a way for humans to breathe underwater for hundreds of thousands of years. Whats your point? 




  I think we should always keep pushing the bar if there are 
things we can't figure out.  And when we do, great! 





Have you also ever considered that learning the origin of Cytochrome C isn't a top priority? We know how it works. We used to not even know it existed. You want to know where it comes from. There are only so many minds that can work on this stuff. If it interests you, go after it. 

You're innocent until PROVEN guilty.




That means that you are charged with doing something, and the experiment, or trial, must establish the validity of the claim that you are guilty. Otherwise, you are free to go.




If the claim that you are guilty is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then you are not proven guilty.




That is how science works. If I make a claim that the eye can see UV light then it is my responsibility to prove that claim. If I do not prove that claim then the claim is unsubstantiated and can not be accepted.

Yeah I should have saw that coming.  My point is that you don't want the jury to have their mind made up
EITHER WAY before the trial begins.  Maybe a bad analogy

SO WHY ARE YOU MAKING UP YOUR MIND ABOUT CONCEPTS THAT ARE NOT PROVEN???




If you do not know something the answer is NEITHER yes NOR no. The answer is "I do not know." You can't make a statement one way or the other.

Creativity is spurned by manipulating what already exists.

Every invention is a build upon something that exists currently.

Name one truly novel innovation that is independent in both origin and structure.

Everything, comes from something else or some existing understanding. It builds upon prior entities.

Creativity is limited by reality however. You are limited by what you have and the resources you encounter and forms of capital at your disposal.

That's all fine and good but first and foremost there needs to be a drive to create or discover.

By manipulating existing entities.




 

 Say if every scientist on the planet
was an atheist and they all took your point of view, they don't know if god exists but they don't believe so.  Would science
ever even attempt to prove god? (humor me and assume that it was somehow possible to prove god with science)

Put forth the claim that god exists. Test the claim. Look at the results. If the claim is supported, accept the hypothesis as a theory. Re-test. Reassess. Add to existing base of knowledge of previous result. 



You can test ANY idea or concept...but if it does not hold up to its own weight or isn't supported, then it is not accepted. 

I mean would there 
be a motivation to do the work?  I think saying "I don't know but anythings possible" would foster more development than "I don't know, I 
don't believe". 

OK...Well prove it!



Thats my point.




I don't believe there is a god...and I don't have the interest to find out. I do not know if there is a god or not. I can't prove that there ISNT one. So go test the hypothesis yourself!




If you can't support the hypothesis you can keep trying or you can move on. Its up to you.




But the hypothesis that god exists is NOT proven.




 

 You have to let various possibilities enter your brain for you to make any meaningful discovery.  Again, this is not about a man 
in the sky.  You can substitute deep sea life for god if that helps illustrate the point any better.

I DO NOT ASSUME WHAT LIES UNDER THE SEA. I MAKE OBSERVATIONS BASED ON WHAT EXISTS.



IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT THE LOCHNESS MONSTER LIVES IN THE SOUTH-PACIFIC THEN YOU MUST GO PROVE THAT THEORY.




IF YOU DO NOT PROVE IT, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE ISN'T ONE...IT JUST MEANS THAT YOU HAVEN'T PROVED THAT THERE IS. 

If you assert that god creates everything and this is your form of creativity...then please, explain how you arrive at this answer and what implications that involves. Explain what processes are used and how this can be applied to other areas. Explain what you mean and how it changes things. Until you can support this notion, then your notion is not accepted.

I don't assert that god created everything.  I have various different scenarios that seem plausible to me, some of which involve"god", some
of which don't.  I'm with you, I don't know who or what created everything.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW...JUST SAY SO.



REPEAT AFTER ME:




"I DON'T KNOW, BUT I WILL TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT"

If you want to believe in your god, go ahead. I won't stop you. But until your god is proven to exist or has characteristics that can be accepted or measured in consistently verifiable ways, then your theory will remain unsubstantiated. It will not be adopted on the LACK of evidence, as will any other unproven or untenable claim. You can try for the rest of your life to prove your claim. I encourage you to do so. Never stop searching.


I don't have a god per se.  I have a very broad scope of what could/should/would constitute a higher power, or "god".

Read that again and tell me if that makes any sense.




You're not even that open-minded...You just make stuff up as you go along then back-track as you get called out on it. 




Support your conclusions or abandon the idea

In my mind if an alien
life form had any hand in human development then they could be considered "god", however unlikely.

Key words: "In my mind"



Look if something is true, or legitimately exists, it will do so irrespective of the stance taken. Water is still water no matter who looks at it. Light is still light no matter who observes it. Evolution is still evolution no matter if you observe it.




If this thought only exists in your mind then you must either conclude that its a creation only up to YOUR subjective standards, or that it doesn't exist in the same way that it does to others and thus can not be asserted as an objective entity.




 

 I might be willing to consider some
form of energy as a "god".  Sub-atomic particles could be "god".  I could be "god"!  Every humans collective conscious could be "god". multi-dimensional beings could be "god"

Listen to yourself:



COULD; MIGHT, MAYBE, POSSIBLY, ETC.




GUESSING SOMETHING OR WISHING FOR SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT MORE TRUE.




STOP ASSERTING YOUR GUESSES AS OBJECTIVE FACTS.




ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. NOT EVERYTHING IS PROBABLE. WHEN YOU HAVE NO MEANS OF CONFIRMING YOUR GUESSES THEN YOU CAN NEVER BE WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING. 

  Additionally, I am fully aware that these are unsubstantiated theories AT BEST. 

So stop wasting your time with the "could" and get to the "is" 

I would never expect someone to adopt them, nor do i adopt them myself.  I would in no way classify these as my beliefs, merely possibilities that I ponder on from time to time.

I'm glad you have a vivid imagination. I really am. I hope it takes you far. But until you can take the possibility out of things, it doesn't make them more real entities.



I can conceptualize a perfect superhero or the perfect woman, but that does NOT mean that those entities exist.




Merely having thoughts of something does not substantiate the belief in those things. 




This is the problem with the ontological argument. Christians say "well we have a word 'god' and I can imagine what god is therefore god exists." Which is NOT true.  

But until you find that proof, it won't be accepted. Remember that. No one will take you seriously without evidence to support ANY claim you make. Any. Claim.

Nor should they.  Fully aware and agree 100%, I don't take it seriously myself.  As stated earlier, for me the biggest thing is keeping an open mind. 

NO. NO. NO.



Keeping an open mind is NOT making wild assertions that you want to be taken seriously in comparison to things that are actually supported with evidence and objective understanding.




You're free to have your own opinions, but you aren't free to have your own facts.




I encourage you to dream, but don't substitute the "could" for what really is proven or not. Stop subscribing to things that you can't prove. Its one thing to make a guess about something, but your guess doesn't matter if you can't confirm it. 

Is it technically wrong for me to assert that god does NOT exist? Yes. So I apologize.

Thank you!  This is the main thing I was getting hung up on.  If you just stated "I do not know but do not believe"
I think a lot of drama and criticism in your threads would disappear.  That was a very good clarification.  Completely
reasonable stance as well.

I say it all the time and no one reads it. In fact i'm certain that if you search you will see it ALL THE TIME.



Furthermore you said that "keep saying it"...and I DONT. I didn't even say it in THIS thread. I only clarified because you kept moaning about it. 

However, you do not KNOW that god does exist either. You do not KNOW this fact. You are an agnostic.

You do however BELIEVE that a god exists. You are a theist. 

You are an agnostic-theist.

You do not know that a god exists, but you believe that one does.

Well I don't want to argue semantics but when you speak of beliefs, I tend to view that as absolute or conclusive.

Its not "semantics" its the definition.There is no debate here.

I consider
the vast majority of things of this nature to be possibilities, not any particular thing I "believe" as it were.  I would correct you
to say that I am simply agnostic, with no particular belief but a consideration of a wide range of possibilities that include theist 
and atheist ideals

You're an agnostic-theist.



End of story.




The moment that you can challenge the premise of what a "god" can do then you're an atheist...but you refuse to pay attention to this fact.

I didn't call anyone any of the aforementioned name, so don't make that mistake again. Thats a serious charge in these threads with Mods and I won't let you get away making those sorts of wild assertions. Especially if i'm going to be held to that standard.

You've called me personally both ignorant and foolish just in the past week. 

  I can link you if you like.  Or was it my ideas you
were criticizing? 

I don't call people themselves insults. I do attack their ideas. If you can't separate the two, then you might have identity issues. Thats my understanding. You should be willing to discuss ideas, not personal attacks on the person. 

 It seems, all along, that you didn't even really know what my ideas were, hopefully they are a little more clear to you now, perhaps that was my fault.

  They're not. You don't make any sense because you keep making crap up then saying you "don't really believe it" but then keep doing the same damn thing.

Either way, I find it unnecessarily disrespectful, we can have a civilized debate without resorting to such language.

Tough. Again, I won't be held responsible for how you feel about how I view your opinion.



I don't know you personally so I can't make an assessment on YOU as a person...but I can critique your ideas as harshly as I want to. You can choose to do that if you want to as well.

I just think its pretty improbable that the god of the bible, quran, etc exists in the form that they say it does. Until a case is presented to sustain those claims then I won't believe in them. 

 

I agree 100%.  I don't see how any logical human being could find it probable.  As I said, I like to keep an open mind but those particular "beliefs"
are probably the furthest from the things I consider plausible possibilities. 

You say you want to keep an open mind but you still keep the door open.




Dude. ARGH!

 . Just put your foot down. If the claims aren't supported...DISCARD THE CLAIM.

I didn't belittle anyone.




I didn't insult anyone.




I didn't make fun of anyone.




Furthermore if you're THAT concerned with the validity of my arguments, why don't you spend more time addressing the content of my points and not their context. 

I realize that it may not have been your intention, nor do I particularly care what you say about me or my ideas.  I care
more about fostering a healthy, mature debate.  I think it would enhance the presentation of your content if you tried
to be a little more aware of the context it may be received in. But that's JMHO

 Again, more complaining.





I don't need your opinion about "presentation" ...I only care about fact. If it offends you, then poke a hole in the argument, not my character as a person. I address the issues. I don't care about what you ate for breakfast or your sex-life. I only care about the facts of the discussion. 




If you spent more time trying to develop cogent arguments, you wouldn't be worried about trying to market my ideas better. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Its funny how these idiots are supposed atheists and spend a good part of their time on Niketalk defending their idiotic views.

Profound statement.

This dude sillyputty posts about other topics JUST to meet his quota to be able to talk about HIS favorite subject, atheism, and how flawed and completely wrong it is.

Where is the flaw in my stance? 

He is seriously a pest and a grievance to the community.
Your opinion.

He contributes nothing further than his mechanical argument often repeating the same, tired, public school science curriculum terminology in every rebuttal.

Where is the error in those tenets?

It's weak, and exposes the shallowness of western education and his own personal intellect.

How can I correct my stance and according to what outlines? 

You and those who think like you are a waste of human intelligence
95% of the Academy of Science are atheists. ...the other 5% probably don't work in the hard sciences.
Its no matter though, this is again your opinion.

and the epitome of the same hypocrisy you claim to be so critical of by declaring yourself an 'atheist'.

My understanding of conventional grammar prevents me from understanding what you're saying here.

 It makes it even worse when you perceive yourself to be more intelligent than others when you couldn't be MORE wrong.
I never have said that I'm smarter than anyone or more intelligent. I simply state my views. I don't list my credentials and I don't reveal my bias unless asked.
I only care about the facts.

If you think i'm wrong, please tell me where I made the mistake.

So why don't you do us all here on NT a favor and kill yourself and find out.

I encourage you to express yourself as much as you can as long as you don't infringe on my property or my physical rights.

I don't think your opinion is the general consensus though. 

This does raise an interesting point though...its you that believe in the afterlife...why aren't you trying to get there sooner? 

Your annoying as hell. 

 

Incorrect: Your =/= You're 

Correction: You're = You are

Again, this is your opinion. 

I hope this was therapeutic for you.

 

[rko2004]

Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how, some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify. Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.

People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?

 

[41239]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

You have to admit, it would be interesting (and entertaining) seeing believers of different religions debate the merits of their own beliefs. I mean, there can only be one true faith right? If the Christian god is real, that invalidates the Hindu gods, the Greek gods, etcetera etcetera. One of the points that has been made before (and one believers kind of just glaze over) is that most, if not all, believers are just like non-believers...with the sole difference being non-believers believe in one less god.

haha no it wouldnt, and they wouldnt, who said there can only be one true faith? you? believers arent like non believers, non believers would believe if there were proof right?
they wouldnt debate the "merits of their own beliefs" lmao, chances are all they would do is explain their religion and thats it, you should keep it real and say "i want to see believers of varied religions argue, name-call, and shout about how their religion is best like 'my god created the world and will forgive me of all my sins, what did/is your god going to do?'" thats what you want to see

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how, some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify. Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.

People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?

I wish I could take this approach in medicine


Imagine if someone came in with an infection, and instead of going through the diagnostic algorithms I guess took a shot in the dark and instead of paying attention to culture sensitivity I just took a guess and gave them whatever antibiotic comes to mind without paying attention to the side effect profile or efficacy


If science were a bunch of very lucky guesses my life would be a lot easier, imagine if every time a patient coded I just said whatever came to mind and it worked every single time? People die when you make guesses in medicine


I'm sure the same can be applied for pretty much every scientific discipline, imagine if people who designed bridges were just making educated guesses without being precise?

I'm glad people like you stay out of any profession that has human lives at stake

LOL @ the people in here that think science just happens

You guys are so lazy

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how,�

Do you believe in unicorns or Shiva? or Zeus?
Why or why not?

Lack of proof maybe?

some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating is used to find the age of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating is used to find the age of items believed to be younger than 50000 years old due to the half-life of Carbon 14.

We can measure the age of the (observable) universe by measuring the span of light across the universe thanks the hubble telescope

I can't make it any more simpler than this.

If you need explanations, ASK...don't just say "god" and keep it moving. That's lazy.

Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.

How else do you learn?

Does the bible have ALL the answers?

People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?

Radioactive decay of the half-lives of elements.

They follow logarithmic curves.

If you want explanations, ask.

or seek explanations yourself
�






How many science courses have you taken?




When and what were they?

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how, some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify. Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.

People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?

I wouldn't go as far as saying a "bunch of guesses". Especially with medicine, there are a lot of factors when it comes to disease and impairment. With that being said, I wouldn't say it is completely settled either. For example, cancer. Chemotherapy is a complete shot in the dark. Doctors use chemo and radiation because they don't have a clue of what else to do. I know plenty of oncologists and infectious disease physicians personally that have told me they would never use chemo or radiation for themselves if they had cancer because of what it does to the body as a whole. That's the problem with medicine in my opinion. Medicine is based on disease, over looking the cause, the manifestation, ect.

A pt goes in and has a set of signs of symptoms, and doctors treat based on those findings and diagnostics "to put a name" on whatever is the chief complaint is. Most doctors have no grasp of common sense.

I had this new patient yesterday. She was referred by her GP with complaints of neck pain. The general practitioner ran CT scans, Xrays, and blood tests to rule out Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and a few other diseases. I did my examination, strength was fine, had some arthritis at the neck (she's 75 of course she would), overall in good health. Then I asked her what kind of pillow she sleeps on, she tells me "2 feather pillows". Long story short, sleeping with those kind of pillows with the neck and shoulder our proper alignment, which will cause decrease in circulation and compromise nerves. I didn't need to order a bunch of tests to determine what is the cause of her injury. I wrote her a script for physical therapy and got her insurance to reimburse her for a contoured pillow.

 

[jerome in the house]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how, some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify. Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.

People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?

Lets think for a second.


If religion basically comes from a bunch of books and preachers, and you would just have to take their word for it. Wouldn't the logical thing to do is not believe them? At least Science for the most part comes with evidence you can see and/or grasp. Explanations that you can analyze. I feel like no religion offers ANY proof of anything. No explanation on where we came from, no explanation of what we are capable of, no explanation of what is outside of our planet, no explanation of what came before us. NOTHING.


Cool question for the believers that also believe in aliens. Do aliens read the bible too? Do they all have a "savior" "prophets" or whatever?

 

[retro23j]

Originally Posted by Jerome in the House

Cool question for the believers that also believe in aliens. Do aliens read the bible too? Do they all have a "savior" "prophets" or whatever?

Very cool question.