Comments by "" (@louistournas120) on "TED"
channel.
-
162
-
82
-
73
-
41
-
30
-
30
-
12
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
+Anti Zionist
“Yes but Psychics and Mediums we can put to the test. Can't do that with religion .. all those people have already passed.”
==I was talking about Moses, Abraham, Mohamed, Jesus and you are right. These guys are long dead. However, the wild claims such as humanity coming from 2 people (Adam and Eve) is a fairy story. That’s what biology tells us (not enough genetic diversity). I assume the same goes for all the other animals and such as well. For some reason, their god is a low number producer and then he wants fucking to increase the population.
The flood story is a myth as well.
In Mark 16:17-18, Jesus says:
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
^^^^That can also be tested by present day believers. Let’s see them swallow 50 g of KCN. Obviously, they are going to die.
“Miracles described in the bible for example we can not put them to the test”
==Not even Mark 16:17?
As for the dead guys (Moses, Abraham, Mohamed, Jesus), yes, they are dead and will remain dead. These religions sell a fantasy. It is sad seeing a Christian waiting for his Jesus to descend from the clouds (See Louis Theroux documentary on televangelists)
“Probably from donations or other sources of income, but the point here is that nobody is forced to donate to the religion. Islam does not require any money on the part of the believer. Duh we all need money to buy food and such .. that is why we have jobs .. has nothing to do with religion..”
==That’s true however, this is due to numbers. When a church first opens their door, they have their boys going around and encouraging people to come. By getting their numbers up, it is guarantees that some will be big tippers and some will be small tippers.
So a church doesn’t have a fixed income. It has a variable income based on who goes there.
I have heard that for the Westboro Baptist Church and mormons, you must give 10% of your income to them.
Islam does not require money? How do they build their building and fix it? Perhaps the believers do it for free.
The problem with being a psychic is that you need to give the client results. If they make it “pay is optional”, they might not get payed quite often. Priests don’t have to resolve problems. They just sell a dream. So that’s why the pay system is different for both cases.
“That comparison is beyond ridiculous. A psychics does a reading over the phone for 700$”
==I doubt that all psychics cost that much.
“That is the obvious scam”
==For, me it looks like a scam. For the people who go back to the 700$ and pay more and more, I guess it isn’t a scam.
People go to their church and drop 10$ or 20$ every weak. On top of that, the priest just does a generalized speech for the crowd of 100. That’s 1000 to 2000$ per weak.
So, what do you want to discuss now. Obvious vs non obvious scams?
“So you remain a dumb fool, you're welcome.”
==Thank you sir, may I have another.
Listen kid. Stop going to church and dump your religion in the trash where it belongs.
Grow some balls. Accept that you are an ape. You will die one day and become what you were before: just a pile of molecules that get recycled by other lifeforms.
PS: it also looks like you aren’t aware of the failed prophecies of the bible.
3
-
3
-
+Turtle Tail:
"The bible literally NEVER says to kill the homosexuals. It may say something similar to that in the Old Testament, but never in the New Testament. Idk why everyone thinks Christianity is bad; the foundation of it is forgiveness and love. Extremists like the KKK and WBC give it a bad name, and honestly that's just sad."
==Perhaps they didn't specify it because it is written already. I don't know what was going through the heads of the early members. However, they do state:
Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever.
==Sounds like to me he doesn't change his rules.
Why would an omniscient god send some guy (a so-called prophet) once in a few centuries just to change rules? If this god is about forgiveness and love, then how come he can't forgive Adam? Why does he make more humans if humans are sinners? Just make one of the other intelligent sinless creatures. Why does he make muslims, mormons, hindus, atheist, and a ton of other people who aren't going to obey him?
The same thing is repeated here :
1 Peter 1:24
All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever.
The same thing is repeated here :
Psalm 19:7
The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^The old laws aren't abolished. Jews were waitng for a messiah to save them from their overlords, which is Rome. Jesus wasn't able to save them so he isn't the messiah. They had a war with Rome and the jews lost and were massacred. Their temple was flattened.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@PlubusDomis :
"1st Law of Thermodynamics - "matter or energy, cannot be created or destroyed, they can only change.""
==That's not what the 1st law of Thermodynamics says.
Let's take a look at what it actually says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
===The law of conservation of energy.===
"This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. A particular consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy of an isolated system does not change."
Thermodynamics is limited to how energy behaves.
The idea of conservation of mass comes from chemistry. New compounds can be made through chemical reactions but new mass is not created and mass is not destroyed during chemical reactions.
^^^^^^Those come from classical physics.
In modern physics, it is understood that mass can be converted to energy
Example 1: during chemical reactions but this not measurable since the mass change is so small.
Example 2: During fission or fusion of nuclei
Example 3: when a particle and anti-particle encounter each other, they annihilate each other, 2 photons are produced.
Example 4: When a photon of sufficient energy passes through a strong electric field, a particle and anti-particle is created and the photon is annihilated.
"The Big Bang was confirmed True by the cosmic background radiation in space, telling us our universe was Not always here. So the beginning of our universe breaks the first natural Law with a fantastic explosion of material, light, and energy all from absolutely nothing. This is only logical by a supernatural force. Supernatural only meaning superior to what is natural; An entity separate from our logic."
==No, you are way off. That is not what the Big Bang theory says.
The Big Bang theory does not say that it violates any known Physics or Chemistry laws.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but that source is wrong.
3
-
@biffalobull2335 “Being a bigot against religion is equal to be a racist against a person of color“
==I understand racism. It means to treat an entire group of people a certain way, usually by taking away their human rights, because of their skin color (usually it is about skin color).
Most people think that it is unfair to not grant them certain right based on that, so they made the word racism to describe this situation.
“We always tell children to ‘find your way’ and ‘think things through’ rather than blindly accepting what their parents teach them.”
==That’s good.
So, this means that we are both thinking things through and yet, we ended up with a different view.
That’s the find that I wonder about. If we are all thinking things through, if we are all logical and looking at the evidence, then how can humans end up claiming that multiple religions are true?
“Then when they do and determine for themselves that an Intelligent Being is the most logical conclusion, individuals like yourselves try to Poo Poo it”
==I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that I should not talk about christianity?
Or are you saying that I am not doing it correctly?
“That’s bigotry.”
==Can you modify what I wrote to make it non biguous?
“If you want logic, try explaining why it’s racist to say 13% of the population commits 50% of the crime”
==I have heard this claim before. I have not verified it however, if it is a fact, then by my logic, it is not racist to talk about facts.
“Or why it’s homophobic to explain chromosomes”
==What?
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PlubusDomis :
"Must I really go on with more science? I thought I already said enough. Okay, since you asked! Most people bring up the Miller-Urey experiment and similar procedures to"
==Hello,
I received a notification that started with that text but I am not seeing your post here.
I didn't bring up the Miller-Urey experiment but I assume what you want to tell me is:
1. It was a failure because it did not form a cell
2. It formed 11 out of the 20 amino acids but this is of no interest to biologists. It did not form proteins, enzymes, DNA, RNA, mitochondria and other cell structures.
3. It was a racemic mixture of amino acids. L and D isomers were produced, with a 50-50 presence. I have have heard in a creationist show that this is death and not life since when a creature dies, the L isomers slowly change until an equilibrium is attained (a 50-50 racemic mixture).
4. Oxygen was not added as one of the gases. If oxygen was added, no amino acids would be produced since oxygen preferentially binds to the CH4, NH3, H2 and you end up with CO2, N2, H2O.
5. They were guessing as to what the conditions of early Earth was like. Nobody was there to witness early Earth, therefore, they were guessing and guesses are not allowed in science.
I think that just about covers the points that creationists bring up as to the Miller-Urey experiment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Caden McDonough:
"Darwinism is a system that doesnt require a god to function thats why its corrosive."
==1. It is not called Darwinism. It is called Evolution Theory.
2. In science, the person who makes the discovery is not important and in fact, Charles Darwin is not the only discoverer in this case. It was a collaborative effort. He sourced a lot of material from others and compiled a book. For example, someone named Alfred who didn't have a formal scientific training, contributed what he had documented.
3. If these guys had not discovered it, then someone else would have. This is because science is an open system. Also, they are all Europeans because Europeans were advanced in the sciences while the rest of the world was stuck in the bronze age. Notice how jews in Israel never made any discoveries. They were stuck in the bronze age as well along with the turks.
4. There is no god mentioned in anything scientific. The reason for that is that it is a waste of time to say "god did this or god did not". It leads to nowhere. Also, which god are you going to put in a scientific paper?
5. In religion, there is always a main guy. The big cheese. The master leader. The believers place a huge value into the "master leader". In the case of christianity, the master leader is Jesus. When the leader dies, the followers spin various stories and eventually they disagree and split up. This is why there are 37,000 different christian sects.
6. The "gospels" was just some scribling on various goat skins using insect juice. That is exactly what I would expect as an atheist.
7. There were multiple christian sects right from the 1st century. We can see the evidence in the bible itself. There are 4 gospels and they can't get their stories straight. This is an indication that parts of it are simply made up.
8. The bible was written in koin greek. What the heck? Why isn't it in hebrew?
8. The bible was compiled by europeans in the 4th century. An incredibly large amount of time had past.Howcome? Where are Jesus's stuff? Where is this guy's family? Where are his cloths, his tomb, his writings? It is very bizarre that someone who is suppose to be a son of a god leaves no evidence behind except for "ink on paper" written by unknown authors.
2
-
2
-
@damminers49 :
You also disagreed with the point that Jens Raab was making.
Jens Raab says:
"Oh, and another thing: all sciences presuppose naturalism. Can you name one that doesn't?"
Why not look at what science is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Natural_science
"Modern natural science is the successor to the natural philosophy"
So science itself has a foundation in natural philosophy. The idea is to use the inductive method: observe nature, collect data, when enough data is collected, try to explain the data, form laws, form models. This initial explanation is the hypothesis. The hypothesis gets refined over time until it is acceptable to the vast majority of scientists and it gets promoted to the status of scientific theory.
Saying that "the gods did it" or some other type of fairy creature is not an explanation that will be respected in science.
Those kinds of "explanations", and I use the term very loosely, are part of the religion of the particular scientist and it is expected that he will leave his religious leanings and political biases aside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
"Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy."
You wrote:
"Not all sciences presuppose naturalism"
Ok, give me an example of a scientific field that doesn't presuppose naturalism.
"Second, I was very clear in stating that science doesn’t presuppose, but scientists do"
==First off, you should educated yourself as to what science is.
Second, science is done by scientists and they have agreed as to what constitutes science.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"has to be accepted through faith (/trust/being ‘like’ a child)"
==So you define faith as trusting what another person says.
But who are we talking about? Trust who exactly?
I don't randomly trust what other people say, even if they are a group of people.
For example, when they predict what the weather will be like for tomorrow, I trust that it is most likely correct.
I expect meteorologist to behave professionally. It is a profession. It requires education and skill.
They take ground measurements of pressure, temperature, air flow, they take satellite images to track large bodies of air flow and they use computer models.
It is a subset of physics and it is well understood.
So, I know that people who understand the behavior of the Earth's atmosphere work on the problem of predicting the future and they get it right about 90% of the time. 70% for the next day. 50% for the next day. 30% accuracy for the next day.
When you are talking about trust, you must mean trust in someone. Who is that someone?
Since you are quoting the Bible, I guess it is the people who wrote the Bible.
What Luke 10:21 says, is not something verifiable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@janetbeatrice9505
"to imply that someone cannot be religious and reason is rude and insulting."
==Religious people can reason and I find that calling people "stupid" doesn't do anything for the conversation but you have to admit that some religions have some pretty bizarre things in them.
Let's take an example. Scientology:
1. This religion states that we have souls. [There is no evidence for that but its not bizarre for me.]
2. An intergallactic warlord 's planet was overpopulated. Also, their cities look exactly like Earth's 1950 cities back when Lafayette Ron Hubbard wrote his stuff. [I have to be honest. My bullshit senses are tingling.]
3. 75 trillion years ago the warlord brings them to Earth in space ships that look like DC10 planes with rockets mounted on them. [DC10 planes? Why Earth? Was it the closest planet?]
4. He freezes the aliens I think and dumps them in volcanoes and blows up hydrogen bombs.
In a religion like mormonism, Joseph Smith talks about other planets. The "god" is near a star or planet called Kolob. The Sun gets its light from another star.
He doesn't talk about rockets, interstellar travel, hydrogen bombs, DC10 planes.
In very old religions like judaism, you have no mention of other planets, no hydrogen bombs, no technology. You have lines that talk about gold, copper, brass, trumpets, fire, swords in the tanakh.
It is bizarre that judaism doesn't mention other planets, rockets, interstellar travel, hydrogen bombs, DC10 planes.
Is it possible that the creators of these religions write about the things they know and can conceptualize?
1
-
@damminers49 :
"but that doesn't say why we should presuppose naturalism."
==A scientist can have his own religion and believe in supernatural stuff but when he is doing work, he should leave his religious beliefs out of it. We expect him to behave professionally.
Otherwise, the scientific field will become a battleground between different religions and we don't want that. They are a waste of time.
The goal of science has been to learn about the universe. The best way to learn about something is to discover it.
As for a religion like judaism, all you can do is read a book. You either believe the wild stories in it or you don't. But how is that any different than reading Spiderman comic books? That's what a theologian is. They just have a degree that says that they read some books.
"General relativity was based on theoretical findings. Einstein couldn't really prove the theory, but if the ideas or results don't match the theory then it doesn't work."
==No, actually, Einstein based his theory of Relativity on experiments that had already been carried out. He also performed what he calls thought experiments. A myth has been going around that he made it all up in his mind. There is another myth that he was bad at math. (That one started when he was alive and he gave interviews about it and showed his grades).
Anyway, a good theory should be able to make predictions that can be tested to validate or falsy the theory. One of them was that increasing the speed of an object also has the effect of slowing down the passage of time for that object. This was confirmed with unstable particles being accelerated at high speeds. Their half-lifes became elongated by the amount of time predicted by the theory of Relativity.
"There is a very long list of scientists and mathematicians that presupposed supernaturalism. I can name a few. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Carl Linnaeus, Blaise Pascal, Johannes Kepler, Brian Kobilka, Gerald Gabrielse, Francis Bacon, and of course Sir Isaac Newton in his work "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica." There are hundreds more I can name, in every field of science and education. The education system as we know it was largely founded on Christian, or super naturalistic fundamentals."
==Yes, some people say that the education system was founded by christians. Some say that modern science was founded by christians. Some would even say that it was founded by the white race, which means it is the superior race.
I would not make those statements.
Yes, I agree that those people were christian but that is normal. It was a long time ago.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was born in 1632 in a christian family. The chances are pretty high that the kid will also be christian and remain so as he grows up.
The Europeans had an advantage. They were advancing. They were ship builders. They had the best weapons. They would go around the world and discover new locations. They had creative people. How did christianity play a role in this?
I don't think it played any role.
A good scientists, a creative person, given the right environment, the right entourage of encouragement, would be able to work and make discoveries no matter what his religion is and that is what we see today.
BTW, Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy which is none sense. He also could not explain the precession of Mercury and said that is evidence of the jewish god.
The theory of Relativity was able to match the observation quite precisely and so, the idea of "the gods did it" have once again been replaced by a naturalistic explanation.
"You go back to the god of the gaps argument, no one is doing that. You must not have read ID material, Principia or any other serious scholar that comes to the conclusion that there is a creator."
==I have read a couple of papers that they don't publish in anything official. ID summarizes to this: It is complex, therefore nature could not come up with it, therefore the gods did it.
Another formation of theirs is that the chances of forming a protein is 10^120, therefore, the chances of forming via natural means is unlikely. (This one I have heard numerous times from creationists).
Anything else?
"You dismiss dreams, but you should read works like "Man and his Symbols" by Carl Jung. I would recommend "Orthodoxy" by GK Chesterton, that will help you value myth, imagination, and the mind."
==Feel free to give me an example.
"I would recommend looking into William Lane Craig, reading some of his material and dealing with serious scientists like James Tour, Stephen Myer and John Lennox"
==I have seen William Lane Craig in debates. I was not impressed. He does not do scientific research and thinks that the kalam cosmological argument means a god exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
The kalam cosmological is not an argument for a god. It is an argument for a cause.
I also looked at a couple of James Tour videos. In one of them he was crying and says Jesus popped up in his room. Sorry, I don't buy it.
In another, he shows that he doesn't know the difference between abiogenesis and Evolution theory.
On top of that, he shows that he doesn't understand that science replaces his religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
"Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.[1][2][3] Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. Meyer is a Senior Fellow of the DI and Director of the CSC.[4]"
I have seen John Lennox in debates. I was not impressed. He makes appeals to emotions rather than talking about evidence.
In summary, it doesn't matter if a scientist believes in whatever gods. None of them have any evidence and none of them can present a supernatural material that has been analyzed.
"This will be my last message."
==Why? This was an interesting conversation.
Show me the best material, the best evidence or any evidence that supports ID.
What does ID teach us?
As far as science goes, physics, chemistry, biology and all of the subdomains ... none of them include anything supernatural. So it is perfectly fine to presuppose naturalism. As far as any scientist can tell, we are living in a natural universe.
What is a god? It is an old fashion term. They are suppose to be "super" men or women with super powers. The were basically the Superman, Spiderman, Wonderwoman of the old days. Once in a while they show up to help humanity or something.
They are basically aliens but the ancient people called them "gods".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"‘faith’ is actually a real thing like in the same vein as say ‘love’"
==I know what love is but What is faith?
There is physical evidence for love. By physical, I mean made of atoms.
First off, we need a human brain. The human brain is where human thought, logic, vision processing, sound processing, memory,
emotions happen. When a person is in love with something, he would take actions accordingly. If he/she loves someone, he/she takes
actions accordingly.
Also, in principle there would be evidence in the neuronal connections but right now, we don't understand the human brain that
well.
"God is found through spirit, not a microscope... Love for example would be a much better tool for detecting traces of ‘God’ than
say the Hubble telescope?"
==How would you determine if what you have found are gods as opposed to just "feelings"?
I'm don't thing that feelings are the best way to determine what is real and what is not real.
Reality should be something observable by anybody.
That's why in the science domain, people argue and debate but in the end, when enough evidence piles up, the explanations for them
slowly become accepted. When a model in science has the ability to explain and make predictions that can be tested, we call this a
good model.
"before countering arguing the numerous weaknesses in my words, that science itself tells us that ‘everything’ comes from
‘nothing’—or an infinitesimally small dot."
==Science doesn't state that everything comes from nothing.
Perhaps you are talking about Lawrence Krauss's book. He explains that stuff in his book, I believe on page 5.
The Big Bang theory postulates that since space is expanding, then logically, going back in time, space was more compact and
possibly crushed into a very tiny dot.
"Science without these ‘things’ is completely limited or cut off at the knees when it comes to describing spirit and spiritual
things like God."
==Unfortunately, I do not know what spirit is. It isn't something that is demonstrated in the sciences.
"Humans are spiritual being living in a physical reality, anyone who can’t accept this (that we are truly spiritual) cannot see
anything beyond the physical."
==I'm not sure why some humans have a need for "beyond the physical". Perhaps the physical world is hard to understand. Perhaps it
is hard to work with. Perhaps it does things that you have no control over, such as death and pure chance.
That's something that you would have to explain to me.
"And whose to say that spirit and science are in any kind of opposition? Science just hasn’t discovered a way to effectively
‘observe’ or even define what spirit is (thank God). Science just needs a few more tools in the box (like faith.)"
==Faith is a tool? Explain how a scientist would use it?
"The ultimate irony, being that children would have a better chance of proving/observing God than any of the tools of science do.
(Ie. Innocence/purity, simplicity, unfettered by the ‘ways’ of man—corruption, etc...) Be therefore ‘like’ children should you
wish to see the kingdom of God."
==I don't know if what you said is true or not. Can it be demonstrated in some way?
1
-
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"did you read Luke 10:21?"
==This is Luke 10:21 NIV version
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have
hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were
pleased to do.
What are you trying to tell me with Luke 10:21?
"however, for spiritual things we shall turn to spirit"
==What is a spirit?
I base what I believe in on as much evidence as possible.
Reading a book is fine but the ideas they present have to be verifiable, reliable, testable.
For example, I cannot verify if Jesus is full of joy.
In fact, it is pretty irrelevant.
I cannot verify if Jesus said "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth .........".
Let's say I give it the benefit of the doubt and Jesus spoke those words.
The question is:
1. Is Jesus really talking to a god?
2. I know that there is an Earth. By heaven, is he talking about space or some other dimension?
3. Does the "god" really hide these things from the wise and learned? Is he talking about Isaac Newton?
The bible is basically a piece of paper and ink. Anybody can buy paper and ink and write whatever they wish.
Anybody can get webspace and write whatever they want on their website.
You shouldn't just believe anything without verification.
Most importantly, you should ask questions.
"Seek understanding, use your intelligence to navigate the lies from the truth."
==Sure, I don't have a problem with that.
The difference between you and me is that you think the Bible is entirely factual and I do not.
How come we have come to different conclusions?
I think you already answered it:
You trust the people who wrote the Bible.
So, why do you trust them when other people who were there did not trust him?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"the system of verification you use to filter out baloney is admirable and obviously makes sense. However, at the same time of filtering out some useless noise, it is still not a reliable method to always ensure truth. For example, does it have the ability to cut through its own bias? Is it not self protecting and automatically rejecting anything that doesn’t fit within its preconditions?"
==Yes, it is pretty important in science to have a strong filter. The job of the filter is to block bad information, unverifiable claims.
Without a filter, everything gets in and pollutes the books of science.
Since science is done by humans, individual humans have their own biases. That may be political, it may be religion, it might be that the human has developed an idea that he likes or thinks is true.
In order to deal with that, it is necessary that any other peer be able to verify the work.
But even that does not guarantee that the filters of science will work.
There is no 100% guarantee.
So, the solution that you are proposing is to eliminate the filter?
Should we go with faith in science?
How would that make science superior to science without faith in gods?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"LoL, I’m actually saying you cannot find the answers that deal with spirit through the scientific method. And that cracking the mystery of God is truly what man’s purpose is. So the person that puts all their eggs in that basket (the science alone one) is essentially missing the point. Though I say it’s admirable to have a rigid filter like you describe, that filter is not necessarily going to serve you well when seeking the answers to origins of man and the universe... "
==I can't agree that that is human's purpose.
I think that science is the best way to determining how reality functions. The inductive method is what is currently used in science (Collect data, build a model, explain the situation, make predictions. This becomes the initial hypothesis.).
The previous way was to use the deductive method which basically means sitting in a chair and thinking about how reality operates. Although that is nice, in the end, data must be gathered from reality.
I'm not sure how you are going to determine how many gods there are, what they do, where they are located, and various other details.
Perhaps you can explain your methodology.
"You can clone life and bring back the wooly mammoth from extinction with science, you cannot however discover the true purpose or source of life through it."
==I would use the word purpose in certain situations such as
1. The watch. Humans invented the mechanical/digital watch in order to keep track of time.
2. A painting. An artist draws a painting. The reason is that he likes to pain certain scenery. An art admirer buys it. The purpose of the painting is entertainment.
I don't see the mountains as having a purpose. Same goes to all natural phenomenon. I think nature is a mindless thing. It has no purpose.
I can understand your POV. You think that everything is artificial and so, they have purpose (Some sort of utility).
"If ‘the filter’ automatically just filters all of this out [ie. b/c its preconditions are not met] then you can be sure that the filter is not serving you, but is serving something/someone else"
==I think what you mean to say is that the filter is blocking something that is true.
It certainly is possible that some things are true and there is no verifiable data yet.
That is why the books of science remain opens.
I think the best time to believe that some "thing" exists or something is true is when it can be verified and not before.
^^^^^^^^I am talking about the default position here. The default position is non belief as to the existence of gods.
The same kind of concept is present in science.
The same kind of concept is present in criminology: not guilty until proven guilty.
The prosecution and his team have to put in the work to bring evidence that Mr X did the crime rather than Mr X proving that he is innocent.
"Consider the previous example in light of quantum theory. It contains a theory called the ‘observer effect’, which scientists have shown that observation, even passive observation changes the outcome of a phenomenon."
==It's not an observer effect. Some people have misunderstood the interference experiment. It has nothing to do with consciousness. Interacting with an electron (which has wave behavior) changes its behavior.
There is no indication that reality is subjective or that we are creating reality.
"Again consider, love and hate. When hate (dark) is used as the perspective for observing a situation or phenomenon you might conclude that something is bad, regardless of whether or not it is inherently bad and vice a versa with love (light) as the perspective. This is like faith. When faith is part of the equation you can actually change the outcome. Like optimism, it can improve the outcome of a phenomenon... BUT everything has its opposite to counter it, for where faith doesn’t exist you will have doubt, where love doesn’t exist you will have hate, etc... everything of this nature appears to be in a sort of vacuum. If you are not full of one thing you will be full of its other.... but in reality it’s usually a combination of both elements that are in constant flux"
==I don't understand. Perhaps you can give an example.
So what is your plan for heaven. What will you be doing?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"Seek and you will find, ask and you will receive, knock and the door will be opened... to me this is directly encouraging us (from the gospel) to ‘learn’, to seek knowledge and understanding as our primary goal/instinct."
==To you, those lines have value.
To me, they don't have any value at all since they are far too general and not giving usuable information.
Do you really need some other human to tell you to learn, to seek knowledge?
It is in human nature to be curious. It is also present in other animals.
I don't know. It is a huge planet with 6 billion people. Perhaps in your case you aren't curious about the world around you.
I can understand that there are some humans who have problems that get in their way: they need clothes, food, medicine.
What is your excuse? You have a PC. You have a library nearby. You have access to a higher education.
"I was an atheist and very cynical about anything supernatural, it was only after been shown that science didn’t really have any of the pertinent answers (origins, purpose, etc...) that I assumed it had."
==I was a christian and I realized that primitive man did not have all the answers and they developed the answers as they saw fit to them. Death is difficult to accept for any sentient being and so, they began believing in having souls at some point. Different cultures developed their own creation myths, their own gods.
The core of all religions is THE SOUL. All the rest is just icing on the cake.
People just don't want to die. They don't want to suffer. They don't want their loved ones to suffer. So, they dream of a utopia.
(Note: I don't know the details of every religion but the ones that I know about have the concept of the "soul".)
I also learned that people who use the term supernatural have no idea what it is. It is just a word that gets thrown around. The most I have gotten is "above nature". Fine, but is there anything observable?
"science didn’t really have any of the pertinent answers (origins, purpose, etc...)"
==Science is a natural philosophy. In other words you have to keep your political and religious biases out of it. So, it is normal that you aren't going to find a purpose to why you exist with science. There is no evidence that the universe is artificial or that we are artificial. As for origin of the hominid species, evolution theory covers that. The ultimate beginings of life would be covered by chemistry/abiogenesis which is a work in progress with various hypothesis that are being worked on. It isn't solve yet.
"The more I looked the bigger that gaps and the recognition that it is actual through faith that those gaps are being filled, with the idea that they will ‘soon’ be discovered"
==Maybe they will be discovered and maybe they won't.
If that is not acceptable to you, then might as well forget about science and go with religion which says it has the answers.
"scientific method is a good tool for reducing bias and raising objectivity above all things.... but yet it’s apparent faux pas is that it kind of ‘lies’ at the same time"
==What lie are you talking about?
"by it’s very nature/purpose it basically removes God from the equation or from having any pertinence to anything."
==Why would we write in the books of science about the jewish god that you believe in? Why not the god that the greeks believed in? Or one of the thousands of other gods?
Well, which gods do you want included in the page of a science book and what do you want them to write?
"And the aftermath focuses on stuff like evolution and then somehow or other use that as a bases for arguing against creation"
==Science doesn't argue against the existence of any gods or aliens and science doesn't use evolution theory to argue against them. However, Evolution theory, geology, radiometric dating and so on certainly tell us that young earth creationism is none sense.
This is why the christian/jew/muslims who are into young earth creationism see science as their enemy. Quite a few of them have mentioned that Evolution theory comes from the devil.
"If you can follow this, you should be able to admit that the ‘god’ of the gaps is not created by ‘creationists’"
==It absolutely comes from creationists and also ancient humans.
God of the gaps means when you have a gap in your knowledge, for example, how does lightning work/happen and if you don't know the answer, you insert god into it.
How did life form on Earth? God did it!
How did the Sun form? God did it!
How did that cloud form? God did it!
^^^^^^^^As you can see, the "god did it" can be used at any point in time. It is an easy answer. It doesn't require much thought. It doesn't required expensive equipment, a good education. Basically, any idiot can say "god did it!".
"both, essentially coming from nothing, except we can play the laws of thermal dynamics and maybe use something like E=mc^2... and then say well from pure energy everything came to be... but then again that essentially proves God.... and your question of what is spirit? Everything is energy, is moving, is not even ‘solid’... you would know this better than most. How does that sit with you in light of nature supposedly not being supernatural?"
==You lost me. How does that prove that a god exists? You seem to be talking about the initial stages of the Big Bang.
Sure, what is a spirit? Where is your spirit located?
"How is rock, the most natural thing we can think of actually ‘natural’? It is hollow? It’s mass is only like 1/100,000 of something that we would naturally assume is solid... you could blast a rock with quarks or neutrinos and they would never even meet each other."
==What???
"Bottom line is that I know where we come from"
==Well, how do you know that the Bible comes from a god?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"Your first paragraph missed the mark so badly"
==What I am suggesting is that there are some ideas that are a little bit advanced and there are some ideas that are so basic that
even the people from cavemen times could figure it out.
I will give you a few examples. Tell me if it makes sense or not.
Example 1:
What are the chances that a primitive man (from ~5000 y ago) will try to build a house? I would say pretty high. Reason: All humans want
to have a safe location to dwell, out of the winds and rain. [Do you agree or disagree?]
Example 2:
What are the chances that such a man will invent the door? I would say pretty high. Reason: Humans want to feel safe in their home. They would also invent the hinge and eventually, someone will invent a way to block the door. [Do you agree or disagree?]
Example 3:
What are the chances that a primitive man will talk about atoms, the existence of sub atomic particles, the arrangement of electrons in shells, the arrangement of nucleons in shells, nuclear stability? I would say the chances are 0. [Do you agree or disagree?]
Example 4:
What are the chances that humans would invent a language? What are the chance that they would invent a written language? I would say pretty high. Reason: humans want to record what they are doing bc they know that they will die and history will be forgotten. [Do you agree or disagree?]
Example 5:
The Bible. What are the chances that some believer would write that when you seek god, he will reply back (or something of the sort). I am referring to what you wrote ""Seek and you will find, ask and you will receive, knock and the door will be opened.". To me, it seems normal that they would write stuff like that. I am not seeing anything extraordinary. Primitive man is perfectly capable of writing such things.
If they had written about Example 3, I would sat WOW. HOLY COW! That's a lot of details they discovered. How did they find out about the atomic structure and nuclear structure?
So, go ahead and give your input.
Does the Bible contain things that ancient man could not have written on his own? Did it really require a super intelligent being to write it?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"I suppose you would have me go backwards to rejoin you with the way I used to perceive reality, a return to an empty,
materialistic philosophy"
==No, that's not what I am talking about.
I am talking about how would you (or anyone else) be able to tell what is true and what is false.
You can't just listen to a story and based on your feelings decide whether a story is true just because it makes you feel good.
The best way to determine what is true is to collect evidence. Multiple people should be able to view the evidence. In fact,
anybody should be able to view it.
"where we sacrifice our children to false gods. Do you understand this? We (as a species) need to wake up and turn away from
idolatry (worshiping stuff) and move forward into spiritual lives, but in truth"
==Who is asking you to sacrifice our children to false gods?
No sorry, I don't understand it. Are you talking about a real event that happened with you? Are you talking about a dream? Are you
talking about a movie?
"no more lies, no more power structure that cater to the rich or to corporations or to the powerful (including the clergy)"
==There are always power structures. For example, you are quoting the Bible so I assume you are a christian. That book talks about
king, a kingdom, a throne. It describe the "god" as omnipotent and omniscient being. They sold you a story about how loveable the jewish god is. It's just a story. It is ink on paper. There is no evidence for any of it.
"So where is the truth? How do we establish who is right? Votes? Lol. For ‘now’ we decide what is true, even if we don’t actually have a clue."
==You seem to be talking about politics & human law. Human laws can be changed and policies can be changed.
I am talking about reality itself. Reality, the laws of reality can't be changed.
If you want to believe the bible comes from the god, first, there needs to be solid evidence that it comes from a god.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damminers49 :
"ok how can those things be easily made?"
==Abiogenesis is not a solved problem, however, there are ideas. For example, look up RNA world hypothesis and the experiments that relate to it.
It is better to try to figure out a solution and experiment rather than give up and claim "the gods did it", which is the lazy man's answer to everything.
That's like going to the hardware store and asking the helper, "How do I paint my room" and he answers "You paint a room by painting the room".
"Second, can our brightest make a functioning cell, if it’s a simple process?"
==Intelligence is irrelevant.
I am not talking about intelligent design where the designer sits down and tries to figure out which sequence of nucleobases makes a human. That is something that is proposed by theists.
The RNA world hypothesis proposes that a short RNA sequence forms and is able to self-catalyze and make duplicates of itself.
The best replicator wins.
"You are simply speaking about what is seen in nature, it exists ie amino acids and what isn’t seen as a natural complexity such as an engine."
==You are stuck in thinking that if something is complex, then it is not natural. You don't even know what complex means. It is just a word you and ID people throw around. Even I throw it around as you can see. It doesn't have any particualr meaning.
I gave you an example of how complexity is meaningless.
There are certain things that nature cannot do, even if it is simple: iron nails, copper pipe, brock, sheet of glass.
Is number 1 less complex than 111111111?
What is DNA? It is a sequence of nucleaobases than can be converted to letter AGCTAGCTGAGAGA.........
which can be converted to numbers.
If you can have 1, why can't you have 11 or 111, etc?
"How does he misunderstand evolutionary theory"
==I gave you the link to the video. He is confusing abiogenesis with Evolution theory.
Did you watch his video?
1
-
+Mysteryskatin:
"Atheists cannot disprove God."
==There are a lot of things that me and you can't prove to not exist, such as smurfs, leprechauns and other magical things.
I can't even prove that I don't have a sister.
In order to prove the existence of something physical, you need evidence.
If you claim that all gods are non physical, then they don't exist.
If you think about it, numbers, names, words, ideas, software (Windows XP) don't exist either.
They can only "exist" if there is a physical (atoms/molecules/energy) representation of them.
Yes, I have a CD with Windows XP on it. Do you think that this plastic is really Windows XP?
1
-
1
-
+Mesafint Fanuel:
"First of all you atheists should remove the notion "thousands of other religions from your minds" because the reality on the ground is that there are only three type of worship places in you neighborhoods christian church, Islamic mosque(few in number), and Hindu temple(highly unlikely)."
==What is or is not in my current neighborhood or in my current century is irrelevant.
The fact is that there are hundreds of cultures and probably thousands of religions have popped up and disappeared.
The fact that most of them have died out doesn't change the reality that religions and gods can be invented by mere humans.
"Most of you don't take Hindus or budhist seriously they are not in your sphere of existence so we are left with three to investigate"
==FACT1: I don't know those 2 religions in detail.
FACT2: Those 2 religions are not a problem for prime countries like USA, Canada, Europe, Russia, Australia.
Do you think if I read their books cover to cover, it would change my mind?
FACT : Nope. Ink on paper doesn't convince me specially when it is just a religion.
"You are supposed to go "read" what it says and then say that the bible is a forgery"
==Ok, I have read it. And? What is the point you are trying to make?
You should read the bible plus read some books written by atheists such as Richard Carrier. These are the guys who notice the problems with the bible, the koran,
"You are mistaken the bible itself says that its contents are written by "Holy men" inspired by the spirit of God."
==How difficult is it to write that?
"If you think this people are not "Holy" men then it up to you to prove to me that they are not holy men but forgerers"
==FACT1: There are mistakes in the bible. (Bats aren't birds. Rabbits don't chew the cud. Insects don't have 4 legs)
FACT2: The genesis story and flood story is invalidated by modern science.
FACT3: conflicting info in the bible.
FACT4: Why would holy men write the bible and not "the god"? OK, not really a fact but a pretty good question.
Ok, so go ahead and prove to me that the bible is written by holy men.
"Every bible reading christian will tell you this. So you are claiming that this is not paul's letters but forgeries in the name of Paul?"
==No. I said no such thing. You really should re-read what I wrote.
"I am sure you will say it is upto me to prove Gods existence to which I say ok the proof is the BIBLE."
==It would not be fair for me to ask you that since I know that you can't provide any evidence.
"For instance the evidence of potassium-argon dating of a rock presently says one scientist that an asteroid hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs"
==I have not heard of such a thing. Show me the white paper.
K-Ar dating is used to date rocks. It gives no indication about an asteroid hit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating
Also, it is believed that the majority of the Ar40 in our atmosphere is a result of K40 decay. This would explain why 99.6% of the Ar is Ar40 on Earth while on Mars, there is far more Ar36 which is the nuclide that is most likely to form during nucleosynthesis.
Evidence 1:
The reason why they think a major asteroid strike occurred is because of the presence of a layer of age 65 My that is an unusually high with iridium. This layer appears all across the planet.
Evidence 2:
Chicxulub has a major crater.
Source: https://www.livescience.com/60898-asteroid-struck-unlucky-spot-doomed-dinosaurs.html
1
-
1
-
@damminers49 :
"It’s one thing to find assembled amino acids, etc. Its another to assemble them at random."
==#1. There aren't just amino acids that can be made, but also nucleobases and sugars and more complex molecules but that is besides the point.
#2
My POINT IS
I'll give you a very short explanation as to what I was talking about.
When an ID "scientist" compares an engine to a cell, his comparison is deeply flawed.
Like I already explained, the chances of components for your engine to come together properly is 0.
Not only that, but you won't even find the components in nature. The chances are 0.
You won't even find the molds and tools in nature. The chances are 0.
How do you expect an engine to get assembled?
For a cell, the components (amino acids, sugars, nucleobases and various substances) can be made easily. We can say the chances are 100%.
We are already a good step ahead compared to your engine.
The missing piece in our knowledge is how did the first cell form, what was it like, what were the next steps in their evolution?
So don't compare bulk objects to molecular machines.
You were comparing a book with a molecular machine (the cell).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damminers49 :
I think the chances of nature producing certain things, even simple things such as a sheet of zinc is 0. If you take a torch and melt some zinc, the forces of attraction between the atoms of zinc would try to shape the zinc into a ball, while gravity pushes the zinc ball onto the ground.
As for the book, the probability of finding processed wood and shaped into paper form is pretty much 0, just like the zinc sheet example.
There is also little chance that the forces of nature would pick up a pen and have it move around the paper to form words/sentences.
In order to make a sheet of zinc, industry uses rollers to press down on a block of zinc and they pass the zinc multiple times between rollers.
The same kind of technique is need to make paper. Paper also requires chemical processes to break down the lignin in the wood.
As for the zinc, there is no zinc in metallic form on Earth. It is a very reactive metal. You can find compounds like ZnO, ZnSO4, ZnCO3 and more complex compounds that contain zinc atoms.
Therefore, molds and tools are needed to make a sheet of zinc or a sheet of paper. Chemical reactions are also needed to make the starting material. On top of that, the tools and molds aren't made by nature either.
So, if I ever find a book in nature, I would conclude a intelligent being created it.
There are certain shapes that nature doesn't tend to produce, like iron nails, hammers, sheet of glass, bricks, copper pipes. All those things require molds and tools to shape the material.
Nails, hammers, sheets of glass are all very simple shapes. Much more simpler than a book.
We don't find any of them in nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@biffalobull2335 I try to understand different people’s point of view.
Some people have a christian background and from their point of view, a person is either male or female and they claim that this is determined only by the 23 chromosome pair.
This was something that was though in biology class as well.
I’m not talking about all christians, since there are various sects of christianity, and perhaps in each sect, the opinions are not uniform either.
Some christians that think you are born as a male or female, based on genitals and that the genitals reflect what role a person should play.
They also tend to have a problem with homosexuality since there are lines about it in their Bible.
For most people, it is not a problem since they are heterosexual and they are male and have male organs or
they have female organs and they are heterosexual and are comfortable in their bodies.
It is only a problem for minority groups since they might be born into one of those christian families or village or city. It turns their lives upside down.
Then, there is the authority, such as the federal government. For example, in Canada and in the USA, the government decided that homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else and should be allowed to marry.
But what about democracy? Shouldn’t it be put to a vote? Shouldn’t the christian groups win and choose how people live their life?
“In fact you’ve not only boarded the train to La La Land, you’ve already arrived and purchased a house there”
==I understand your POV.
I understand that you are upset. Lots of people are upset.
So what should I do? Should I claim that only heterosexual males and heterosexual females exist and join your group?
1
-
@biffalobull2335 “Your definition of racism is from the 60s and your analysis is not based in reality”
==Word definitions are quite flexible. I find that it varies from person to person. For example, when someone uses the word spiritual, I ask them what it means to them.
Some of them explain while some of them respond with “You know what it means and you are pretending not to know” and then I have to respond with “the definition varies and that is why I ask him and yet, they don’t provide their definition.
For the question of racism:
I have had that experience recently when someone said there is no such thing as race and he linked me to a video. I watched it entirely. It is from a geneticist.
I pointed him to the later parts of the video where the geneticist gives an important conclusion. Although there isn’t a clear cut set of genes that tell us that such and such is asian, such and such is from african descent, such and such is a native of north america, there is a certain set of genes that appear with a higher frequency in certain populations.
Essentially, what that means is that race is a real notion. We can all see it with our eyes when we look at the shape of a human skull and genetics backs it up.
There is a certain episode of the Eye of Nye, starring Bill Nye the science guy. A certain geneticist shows that genetics does not support the notion of race but I think she had only measured the presence of 4 genes.
I don’t think that is enough. For eye color, only one gene controls eye color. For the notion of race, I don’t know but there must be plenty that control skull shape and other features.
I have heard someone claim that math is a european thing.
Racism is real but in order to fight it, it is making some people insane. By insane, I mean that their belief is not matching up with reality/observation.
Truth is subjective? Maybe.
It is clear that word definitions are subjective. If you want to base the definition of race on the presence of 4 genes and you conclude that race doesn’t exist, then that is true.
If you want to define race via the presence of 50 genes, maybe then you will conclude that race does exist.
If you want to define a corvette as a certain structure and if I remove a certain screw, then maybe it is no longer a corvette.
What is a woman? Is it defined by the 23 chromosome pair? Is it define by the brain? Is it defined by the genital organs?
When a baby is born, hospitals use the genitals to declare a baby as male or female.
But the baby grows up and maybe he feels like a woman.
Then it turns into a legal battle since society’s definition of male and female is based on genitals at the hospital.
Merry Christmas to you!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mangs9940 Yes, I was generalizing. That’s what statistics are for. Statistics tell us about trends. They give us clues as to what is going on.
Of course there are plenty of scientists that are religious.
There was an article on the Huffington Post that shows that countries with the best standards of living are the most atheist. This makes sense since when life is hard, people with very little solutions are desperate and they lean on religion as a crutch. For sure, the old days, thousands of years ago, life was much harder.
The converse is also true. The easier life gets, the more engineering solutions, the more technological solutions, the more medical solutions there are, the less humans need the god-aliens to help them out.
The less science savvy a person is, the more gaps he has in his knowledge and the more likely it is that he will be a young earth creationist.
However, there was one university professor, a chemist, that they showed that was a young earth creationist.
There was a 2009 statisitc from Pew that shows:
95% of the general public state that they believe in a god.
5% of the general public DO NOT.
51% of scientists state that they believe in a god.
48% of scientists DO NOT. We count don’t know since they are not stating that they believe in a god.
(Survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science)
There was some statistic on Nasonline, also on wikipeda and also on Nature:
Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, 7% believed in the existence of God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts.
I just put people who say they are agnostic in the non-believer group. So, you have 7% believers vs 93% non-believers.
Definitely, in the scientific community, there are far less believers than the general population.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1