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