DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 As soon as I saw the thumbnail for DieHard's "math paradox" I knew it would just be dividing by zero. It has been done to death. We could explain to DieHard why it doesn't work, but then we'd have to teach him basic math too... You so funny glass hoppel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 ... what? What the fuck are you talking about? actually, I'm probably gonna regret responding to this Is that's because you are a bitter atheist or because you don't understand the statement?WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 My musings on some stories of the Bible. The Torah - Not even going to touch this one with a ten foot pole. The Prodigal Son - This is the one that has puzzled me the most. What's the lesson supposed to be? Love your first-born and throw a party for him wasting the family fortune, then criticize your second son when he asks why it's fair? Is this a way of just saying god works in mysterious ways? A statement on how forgiveness is the most important aspect of life? Job - God and Satan make a bet on whether Job will abandon God if Satan kills his family (how loving of God). Job remains faithful to his lord and is awarded with a new, better wife and kids. These are the only people that Satan actually kills in the Bible, meanwhile Yahweh racks up a deathcount that makes Rambo look like Sesame Street. Revelation - Magic mushroom induced ramblings that were added to Canon for fear mongering purposes. Paul's letters - Ramblings of an influential voice that go far beyond the scope of what Jesus preached. Unfortunately, in my opinion, these caught on and it became the Church of Paul and not the Church of Jesus. A lot less of an emphasis on loving your neighbor, and a lot more emphasis on punishments for those who disagree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Is that's because you are a bitter atheist or because you don't understand the statement? WSS It is because whatever point you are trying to make is going to be Retarded. Either trying to debate something I never said, or thinking you have such a "gotch ya" question in the wings. Wherever that post of yours goes... well... I'm not holding my breath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 It is a knee-jerk reaction from a lot of atheists to say that the bible is entirely outdated, and that we shouldn't be making our laws based upon it. It is subsequently a knee-jerk reaction from devout christians to claim that it's still entirely relevant today. I think neither is completely true. You can take a lot of meaning from some of the allegory included in the bible - as long as you're not taking it too literally. You can look at the struggles some people have gone through and find inspiration. All at a personal level. But I don't think we should be making laws based on "because the bible says so." We're civilised enough, for the most part, in the western world, to be able to have a sensible discussion about what should and shouldn't be illegal without referring to the bible. This is what I was getting at. Thank you. Which is why I mentioned this quote of yours specifically: Woody's point is that the bible is outdated and written for a society that has changed absolutely in pretty much every way, several times and is unidentifiable in today's era. Because I was not dealing in absolutes. You and Woody, however, were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 And the angry birdbrain woodpecker lashes out in despair. Woody doesn't know about philosophy.He doesn't have any science in there. Hey, he'd be freakin LUCKY to spell it correctly, after having multiple examples of it in previous threads, he reads so poorly. Here's the thing - the absolute, overwhelming miracle of biological and botanical life, this universe, this entire planet - is way, way, way more complex and incredible, for it to have simply occured because of some science glitch. I'm just not one of the hateful scientific glitch crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 And the angry birdbrain woodpecker lashes out in despair. Woody doesn't know about philosophy.He doesn't have any science in there. Hey, he'd be freakin LUCKY to spell it correctly, after having multiple examples of it in previous threads, he reads so poorly. Here's the thing - the absolute, overwhelming miracle of biological and botanical life, this universe, this entire planet - is way, way, way more complex and incredible, for it to have simply occured because of some science glitch. I'm just not one of the hateful scientific glitch crowd. Hateful is an odd way of saying rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 And of course, Ken Hamm's peeps respond. Take note, ratings and comments have been disabled... lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA Amusing, right? I love the "observational science vs historical science" bullshit, lol How about this? Also what I was talking about. This dude got voted into congress to represent us. He was on the fucking Science Committee.... There is the danger. A Gallop Poll from 2012 showed that 46% of Americans believe the creationist origin story. That is dangerous. That is a direct result of religion. Yes, not every religious person believes this, I get that. That doesn't change the danger it poses to society. I hope I am around when we start making serious strides in eliminating religion from the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 who knew, woody sounds like a nazi deep inside. sig heil woodpecker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 You're free to believe whatever you want in your own home or at your place of worship or wherever.. You are technically free to brainwash your children. But "Faith" is not a means to make decisions. "Faith" is not a way to run govt. I am not going to demand churches teach evolution (though churches seem to demand science classrooms teach creationism). I am not going to limit anyone's freedom of religion. As we learn more and more, and our people become more and more educated, beliefs like this will fade away. Right now though they are holding back our ability to become more educated and increase our understanding of the world around us. The public may look at the science on issues like climate change and choose not to believe it, because it is coming from the same group that agrees with evolution, and they believe that is wrong. The next great physicist could be forced to learn creationism as a child, shutting their mind to legit scientific reasoning as an adult. So tell me Cal, where exactly am I being a Nazi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 so then how do you propose to "cleanse" the faith / belief system thoughts of said legislators: where such ideals are not to be tolerated in society (according to you) herr sozializt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/143919-watch-cosmos-host-neil-degrasse-tysons-describe-greatest-fear/ Aliens visit then leave.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 so then how do you propose to "cleanse" the faith / belief system thoughts of said legislators: where such ideals are not to be tolerated in society (according to you) herr sozializt? By educating people about science and nature. After awhile, you stop believing in invisible friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 By educating people about science and nature. After awhile, you stop believing in invisible friends. And start believing in politicians pop musicians athletes and movie stars. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadNewsBrowns Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Here's the thing - the absolute, overwhelming miracle of biological and botanical life, this universe, this entire planet - is way, way, way more complex and incredible, for it to have simply occured because of some science glitch. Exactly, out of all the Planets in all the Galaxies ours had so many meticulous events take place that it just happened to spawn life. Now... I want Science to prove that this all happened by coincidence rather than by divine creation. Which is more likely...? Science me that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadNewsBrowns Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 As far as the most recent epidsode and enviromental concerns here's a good article on how Ohio is basically America's dump. Polluting the Oceans the Air on top of the soil and under it as well... never knew about the latter. http://ohiocitizen.org/ohio-is-not-the-oil-and-gas-industrys-toxic-waste-dump/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Exactly, out of all the Planets in all the Galaxies ours had so many meticulous events take place that it just happened to spawn life. Now... I want Science to prove that this all happened by coincidence rather than by divine creation. Which is more likely...? Science me that. And of course we can't. If I pick up a handful of sand throw it in the air the grains fall in a different place every time. I don't give credit 2 a creator for that phenomenon. It just happened. On the other hand mankind has only been semi civilized a few thousand years and science is still in its infancy no matter how cool we think we are today. I mean think about it we are really not much more advanced than ants.We dig shit out of the ground or chop down trees and make buildings out of it and travel as far as the closest celestial body. Great. And we have some parlor tricks. But we are probably the only living creature with the ability the think in the abstract or to ponder spirituality or to assign right and wrong do on natural acts. At the end of the day technology can't make us happy and that, boys, is the goal. Peace and tranquility. Anything else is a waste of time. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 And, it's weird that sig heil woodpecker demands that Christians go against their faith in making decisions. Seriously? Christians have to make decisions based on....the way HE feels? What he doesn't believe? He wants everybody to make decisions on his terms. Not theirs. And, Logic, I know a lot about nature. And still remember a lot of the geology and chem and physics and genetics. Actually, I was in the AF taking science classes at Wright State, to complete my secondary ed degree to teach English, speech and physical science. But, there were so many teachers not working... and being a physician's assistant wasn't actually a good idea in civilian life...so I went into computers instead. It sounds strange to say that children should be "educated" about science so they will stop believing in God. You'd think that knowing more science and nature, would be just as important as learning about love, honor, commitment, courage, grace, and humor...... in the self-actualization process. But, alas, some bypassed the latter, and think that science is all they need. That's pretty sad. Shallow little sig heil woodpecker sad. I do think Logic knows better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 osted Today, 10:41 AM As far as the most recent epidsode and enviromental concerns here's a good article on how Ohio is basically America's dump. Polluting the Oceans the Air on top of the soil and under it as well... never knew about the latter. http://ohiocitizen.o...xic-waste-dump/ Badnewsbrowns ************************************************ Okay, I bookmarked that site. Thanks ! You let them damage our well, and some serious legal stuff is going to happen. Crap. Now I think I'll have our water tested again. dammit. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 And I grew up in the outdoors. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, canoeing, gardening. It's all a fascinating miracle. Not science glitchy at all. Truth is, the more science and nature you learn, the more you would, I figure, learn that it all it fascinating and complex, that only God could have put it all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Truth is, the more science and nature you learn, the more you would, I figure, learn that it all it fascinating and complex, that only God could have put it all together. Actually the opposite, in my experience. The more you learn, the more you can look at something and understand the science behind it, and what caused it to form in that way. But then, you may want to claim it was designed that way. What really gets me, though, is all the ridiculous things we find in nature that are very far from being intelligently designed, like Dawkins' recurrent laryngeal nerve, which runs from the brain to the voice-box - but only after travelling via the heart. Intelligent design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadNewsBrowns Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 And of course we can't. If I pick up a handful of sand throw it in the air the grains fall in a different place every time. I don't give credit 2 a creator for that phenomenon. It just happened. On the other hand mankind has only been semi civilized a few thousand years and science is still in its infancy no matter how cool we think we are today. I mean think about it we are really not much more advanced than ants. We dig shit out of the ground or chop down trees and make buildings out of it and travel as far as the closest celestial body. Great. And we have some parlor tricks. But we are probably the only living creature with the ability the think in the abstract or to ponder spirituality or to assign right and wrong do on natural acts. At the end of the day technology can't make us happy and that, boys, is the goal. Peace and tranquility. Anything else is a waste of time. WSS Don't agree with the sand thing, I think it's a bad analogy. The countless miracles,the resilience of this planet,endless,unlimited,inifinite things that have happened, happen every day to make all this possible has to be the equivalent of someone flipping coins since the beginning of time and having it land heads every time. About the ants I'll agree with you on that one. I'm not a religious guy per se, but I am spiritual. I don't know if there is a "big man upstairs" but I do know we'd better take care of this planet and stop being a cancer & parasite at our simplest form. I think the thing with Science/Athiests is they knowingly or unknowingly stopped believing in God and started to believe that they/we are God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 What really gets me, though, is all the ridiculous things we find in nature that are very far from being intelligently designed, like Dawkins' recurrent laryngeal nerve, which runs from the brain to the voice-box - but only after travelling via the heart. Intelligent design? Except that's not accurate. For starters, it's just the Recurrent laryngeal nerve. The left RLN loops under the aorta and the right RLN goes over top of it. There are some branches of the RLN that extend into the cardiac plexus but they are only hitching a ride on the RLN because as a part of the Vagus nerve (whose primary responsibility is to send sensory info from the organs to the brain) there wouldn't be any sense in separating them when there's already a Nerve bundle in place (allowing for a 2-way street). Richard Dawkins is a blowhard douche that pitches a fit over the giraffe's RLN (which if didn't serve the multiple purposes as above, would be somewhat understandable - hardly proof - of questionable Intelligent design) due to it's extreme length. Chris - put a rubber band around your wrist and every time you critique cal for a "rightwing is right.com" website, snap it forcefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Except that's not accurate. The left RLN loops under the aorta and the right RLN goes over top of it. There are some branches of the RLN that extend into the cardiac plexus but they are only hitching a ride on the RLN because as a part of the Vagus nerve (whose primary responsibility is to send sensory info from the organs to the brain) there wouldn't be any sense in separating them when there's already a Nerve bundle in place (allowing for a 2-way street). Richard Dawkins is a blowhard douche that pitches a fit over the giraffe's RLN (which if didn't serve the multiple purposes as above, would be somewhat understandable - hardly proof - of questionable Intelligent design) due to it's extreme length. Chris - put a rubber band around your wrist and every time you critique cal for a "rightwing is right.com" website, snap it forcefully. OK, I simplified 'cardiac nexus' to 'heart' - so sue me. And yes, the RLN branches from the vagus nerve - why so far down? What purpose does it serve by going under the arteries? And it may only be a slight detour in humans, but in a giraffe it's massive. There are a whole load of instances of things just not being a good design - next time I come across one I'll be sure to bring it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 OK, I simplified 'cardiac nexus' to 'heart' - so sue me. And yes, the RLN branches from the vagus nerve - why so far down? What purpose does it serve by going under the arteries? And it may only be a slight detour in humans, but in a giraffe it's massive. There are a whole load of instances of things just not being a good design - next time I come across one I'll be sure to bring it up. The argument is problematic in 2 ways. First, Dawkins doesn't understand anatomy very well if at all by isolating 1 specific function of a nerve that has several. Second, he assumes that "Intelligent Design" should be the shortest distance between 2 points. Which again, we're not dealing with just 2 points here. According to Gray's (THE authority on anatomy), the RLN innervates more than just the vocal chords with efferent fibers, in addition to being a conduit for afferent fibers to return from the heart and other organs. Looking at the entire picture and everything the RLN "touches" it's likely that it's already in its "shortest distance" position. And if it's not in (what Dawkins and others are defining as) its ideal position/length, why hasn't it evolved to make it so?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The argument is problematic in 2 ways. First, Dawkins doesn't understand anatomy very well if at all by isolating 1 specific function of a nerve that has several. Second, he assumes that "Intelligent Design" should be the shortest distance between 2 points. Which again, we're not dealing with just 2 points here. According to Gray's (THE authority on anatomy), the RLN innervates more than just the vocal chords with efferent fibers, in addition to being a conduit for afferent fibers to return from the heart and other organs. Looking at the entire picture and everything the RLN "touches" it's likely that it's already in its "shortest distance" position. And if it's not in (what Dawkins and others are defining as) its ideal position/length, why hasn't it evolved to make it so?? Unfortunately I don't know enough about the subject matter - clearly you're more informed than me, not surprising given your background - and I don't have time to read up today, but I would dearly love to in the near future. But then you end by saying that if it's not in the best position, that's an argument *against* evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 so then how do you propose to "cleanse" the faith / belief system thoughts of said legislators: where such ideals are not to be tolerated in society (according to you) herr sozializt? Exactly as Logic said a few posts down. It will happen naturally as we as a society become more informed about the world around us. Right now, on average, the more educated you are in science the less likely you are to believe in a personal god. We can even just look at studies and polls now. Religion clearly has less influence now than it did decades and centuries ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Exactly, out of all the Planets in all the Galaxies ours had so many meticulous events take place that it just happened to spawn life. Now... I want Science to prove that this all happened by coincidence rather than by divine creation. Which is more likely...? Science me that. It is more likely there was no divine intervention. There is no evidence or proof of divine intervention, none. If there was any evidence, then it would be something scientists legitimately considered. When you consider how huge the universe is, how many planets there are, it really isn't surprising we are on one that can support life. Not to mention we probably are not the only one. We just haven't found any others yet because we're looking at an incredibly small fraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 And, it's weird that sig heil woodpecker demands that Christians go against their faith in making decisions. Seriously? Christians have to make decisions based on....the way HE feels? What he doesn't believe? He wants everybody to make decisions on his terms. Not theirs. And, Logic, I know a lot about nature. And still remember a lot of the geology and chem and physics and genetics. Actually, I was in the AF taking science classes at Wright State, to complete my secondary ed degree to teach English, speech and physical science. But, there were so many teachers not working... and being a physician's assistant wasn't actually a good idea in civilian life...so I went into computers instead. It sounds strange to say that children should be "educated" about science so they will stop believing in God. You'd think that knowing more science and nature, would be just as important as learning about love, honor, commitment, courage, grace, and humor...... in the self-actualization process. But, alas, some bypassed the latter, and think that science is all they need. That's pretty sad. Shallow little sig heil woodpecker sad. I do think Logic knows better... Holy shit Cal you are awful at reading what I actually type. It is like you just respond to what you are hoping I said and not what I actually said. That way you can just respond accordingly to the "evil lib". I said I would rather not have people's religious beliefs influencing their decisions if those decision are affecting public policy. I am talking about people in govt. here. Take that one video of the Senator I posted. He said that "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell." That's fantastic. So how is that going to influence his decision making for, let's say, funding medical research where evolutionary principles are crucial. Or just say climate change, which is scientific in general. He is already ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence we have because it disagrees with his story book. He is putting aside what is best for the people he represents, and not doing it based on reason or evidence, but on "faith". That is dangerous and that isn't someone I want representing me. How about that congressman that was talking about the end times? If they think the end times are near why would they vote for any long term projects that will help out future generations? Even though it could be completely the right thing to do, he would vote against it. Knowing about science, as well as knowing about those other things you posted, are important. Right now though, we are one of the most if not the most advanced country in the nation but we have some of the lowest science literacy levels. We need to improve those levels, improve everyone's understanding of science, regardless if it makes them stop believing in their personal god or not. This shouldn't be done directly so they throw away their religious beliefs. That very well could be a side effect though. As I mentioned in another post, the more educated in science you, the more likely you are not to believe in a personal god. But no Cal, I'm apparently a Nazi because I disagree with you, classic. I would type here how I am still for freedom of religion, and people can do what they want, and blah blah blah, but fuck it. I have done it a few times now and you haven;t seemed to read/comprehend any of it. Doing it again probably won't do any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.