The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Yeah, questioning false prophets, but not questioning whether YHVH is the One, True God. Where is it written in the Bible that it's OK to worship Ba'al, Ashtoreth, Ra, etc, etc, etc? Where does it say you can please yourself whether you believe what is written or not?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Oh, I forgot you are not going to respond to me except to moderate or correct factual errors so you wont be responding to this.

Do leave this kind of intentional provocation at the door. If you can't then keep yourself from posting.


@All: and that goes for all of you. Discuss things with mutual respect in mind and do your part in maintaining a friendly atmosphere,
TIA.

Wow can't tell if this glass is have empty or full, do agree the materialists\us would probably just waste it!

Originally Posted by unSpawn Do leave this kind of intentional provocation at the door. If you can't then keep yourself from posting.

I said 1 thing and you highlighted it. This entire thread is full of intentional provocations and putdowns, if you don't agree with someones point of view you are irrational or delusional if you don't agree with the other side then you'll have some slight made against you.

In order to stop my posts being highlighted when there are a myriad of others that make personal judgements designed to create a negative reply I will stop posting here and unsubscribe from this thread. However I believe no one else who is regular in this topic and makes judgments of others (e.g irrational, delusional, etc.) will stop posting. I had already unsubscribed from the mega thread but this and another thread were merged and that action subscribed me again.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Please explain to everyone how you "peer review" the big bang?

Since when is it possible to peer review something that happened only once? You can peer review a hypothesis, but not an event, and you know that. Funnily, the current hypothesis of the Big Bang (by the way invented by a priest) explains why our Universe looks like it does today much better than the religions I know of.

If you have all the answers please give us all the evidence then you can lock this thread.

Would you please point out where I posted that I know all the answers? Didn't I post only a few posts ago this statement:

But anyways, no one, especially not scientists, claims that science is always free of mistakes, it was wrong in past times and it will be in the future. But scientists work constantly on making it better, even if that means to overthrow past theories and replace them with better ones.

which explicitly says that science has not all the answers?

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid So do you expect God to reveal everything in your religious book? Every passing fad, junk science, whim of man? If you believe God needs to write down every concern I'm afraid your idea of God and my idea are vastly different.

Your statement a few posts before was:

At least religion says I can ask God directly.

Now you say that your god has not written the answers in the holy book, so you don't know the answers. Communication over a book written a few thousand years ago is in no way direct communication.
So, can you communicate directly with your god (your first statement) or is all you know from your god what is written in the book (your second statement)?

Gathered data? Does Global warming have any? Please tell me what the temperature of London on Jan 28th, 51 A.D. If Science is expected to hold a higher standard than religion the data should be easily accessed.

The temperature of one place at one specific date is useless to say anything about the temperature curve over the years. But we have a pretty good view on the temperatures over time, using measurements involving different methods. If you are interested in that topic you may want to read this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
Of course, if you are dismissing that beforehand because it is made by scientists you won't get much from it, regardless if it is true or not.

I still wonder why people distrust science when it comes to conclusions not in tune with their believe or political agenda, but have no problem at all to accept science when it actually benefits them (after all, this is a Linux forum, a forum for an OS, invented by a student in computer science, for machines developed by other scientists).

Originally Posted by k3lt01 I said 1 thing and you highlighted it.

And with good reason. At times you seem to have a particular way of trying to get at someone and the way you do that does not suit this forum at all. Pointing at others as if to justify or lessen the effect of what you did there does not work.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 In order to stop my posts being highlighted

In order to keep your posts from being addressed by a moderator you will leave that kind of intentional provocation at the door, discuss things with respect for others in mind and do your part in maintaining a friendly atmosphere.

Well, if that someone k3lt01 is trying to get at is me, I'm not in the least bit bothered by it. Some more sensitive people might be. Depends on how much the cold, dead hand of political-correctness has got them in its grip.

It wasn't directed at you. Back to the topic please.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Since when is it possible to peer review something that happened only once? You can peer review a hypothesis, but not an event, and you know that. Funnily, the current hypothesis of the Big Bang (by the way invented by a priest) explains why our Universe looks like it does today much better than the religions I know of. Would you please point out where I posted that I know all the answers? Didn't I post only a few posts ago this statement:which explicitly says that science has not all the answers? Your statement a few posts before was:Now you say that your god has not written the answers in the holy book, so you don't know the answers. Communication over a book written a few thousand years ago is in no way direct communication. So, can you communicate directly with your god (your first statement) or is all you know from your god what is written in the book (your second statement)?

I can communicate with God for myself, I don't claim to receive anything for anyone else. I believe when I know truth there is a clarity of mind a feeling in my heart, a knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, God has told me and I cannot deny it. I believe God put us on earth to test us, whatever knowledge and experience is for our good. I don't believe everything was written down in a bible and I don't believe everything should be. You should be able to build on knowledge learned and past experience (much like the scientific method) to come up with additional thoughts and theories about what you should and should not do.

The temperature of one place at one specific date is useless to say anything about the temperature curve over the years. But we have a pretty good view on the temperatures over time, using measurements involving different methods. If you are interested in that topic you may want to read this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ Of course, if you are dismissing that beforehand because it is made by scientists you won't get much from it, regardless if it is true or not. I still wonder why people distrust science when it comes to conclusions not in tune with their believe or political agenda, but have no problem at all to accept science when it actually benefits them (after all, this is a Linux forum, a forum for an OS, invented by a student in computer science, for machines developed by other scientists).

I never said I distrust science. Similar to religion I feel science is proved through the long term. If it is valid it will continue to make sense, continue to prove itself. I do distrust anyone that claims the sky is falling, the world is going to end, I'm at fault, it's all because of me if I don't do something they want to promote. Your article is full of facts and knowledge, pointing to what? What am I supposed to gather from the data? The world is similar to what it was 1.8 million years ago? Temperature fluctuation is larger than what they were able to pull out of tree fossil? Tons of data and what is the conclusion? If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS? I give the global warming the folks the same critical eye as the preachers that claim the world is going to end, I guess they are both motivated by similar desires, both want your money (you aren't going to need it when the world ends) and both get a similar consistent view from me. Maybe I can buy redemption from the preacher or maybe I can buy carbon credits from the scientists, will either buy me peace?

This should be good: Richard Dawkins vs The Archbishop of Canterbury.
Might need a moderator?

Originally Posted by dugan Is global warming the only topic of science that you mistrust, Blinker_Fluid? (I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just curious).

I don't know too much about global warming but if we could make the politicians shut the hell up ...That would end it

Here's a list of things I distrust about science (hope not to get burned at the stake):

Big Bang
Quantum Physics / Modern Physics
Sting Theory
Global Climate Change / Warming / Cooling / whatever they come up with next to line their pockets with cash from money wasting projects.
Out of Africa theory
That we evolved from Chimps / Bonobos (Darwin never said this AFAIK)
Higgs Boson
Thermal death of the Universe
Multiverses
The shape of the universe (the universe is infinite, so how can you know its shape ?)
Moon hitting the earth theory (because they never went to the moon, and never brought back any rocks, they took rocks from here said they were from the moon and thus the moon must have hit the earth millions of years ago)
The concept of an indivisible particle
The expanding universe theory
Relativity
Mass-energy conversion

other things that I can't think of right now.

*Runs away from the peasants with pitchforks*

EDIT:
Added to list.

Originally Posted by Blinker_Fluid It's the biggest one I mistrust at the moment. And easily the most like a belief system vs something that can be proved. Think of all the policies, rules, laws and penalties implemented because of this. I'll strap on my tinfoil hat and go so far as if the government/governments wanted to come up with something to control the populace this is it. I feel I would have a far easier time proving that Global Warming is used to control the populace than you would have proving a rise in temperature (and if that change is significant and man-made).

Why would you mistrust Global Warming theories? Why seed was planted in your mind that it was not correct? Generally for most people this seems to be big business and the Republicans in America collectively saying it's nonsense, and all their followers picking up on that skepticism without proof, like some... sort. .... of.... religion.... Just about no one doubts climate change from their own free thought and reasoning.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Here's a list of things I distrust about science (hope not to get burned at the stake): Big Bang Quantum Physics / Modern Physics Sting Theory Global Climate Change / Warming / Cooling / whatever they come up with next to line their pockets with cash from money wasting projects. Out of Africa theory That we evolved from Chimps / Bonobos (Darwin never said this AFAIK) Higgs Boson Thermal death of the Universe Multiverses The shape of the universe (the universe is infinite, so how can you know its shape ?) Moon hitting the earth theory (because they never went to the moon, and never brought back any rocks, they took rocks from here said they were from the moon and thus the moon must have hit the earth millions of years ago) other things that I can't think of right now. *Runs away from the peasants with pitchforks*

this is surely just a list of things you don't understand. Why do they need to be distrusted? This stuff is generally VERY hard (especially Sting theory... why DO people buy his records???) Multiverses feel like nonsense to me, but as I know I'll never understand enough about the underlying knowledge, I just have to leave it as "no opinion" as I at least appreciate that I am not personally qualified to state a case against it. Compare this to the muppets who deny evolution from their (often high intentional) misunderstanding of the subject matter.

One common thing I've picked up on, is that religious people only generally tend to distrust / deny the things that conflict with their religion. You don't distrust vaccines, electricity and all that do you? The things that (until someone posts a suitably amusing bible quote) aren't actually casting any doubt against the things you believe. It's only when you find yourself with two alternate realities that you have to say how bad science is.

I don't want to have "faith" in scientists, and sure I'll accept pretty much everything they say as long as I find it broadly compatibile to my actual proven knowledge of the world. I'll say that I don't understand quite how I should best perceive much of scientific research to not basically treat it as something like a religion. I do have to take things like peer review as good enough for me, as I do not have the time, inclination nor mental capacity to really understand everything ever. Real scientists will often have a much better perspective on this though. People who take science as fact will often say pretty dumb things about it being absolute fact etc, whereas a scientist will often say "You know, I've no idea really, but it's our best guess so far" and they get really excited when things are shown to be incorrect.

as for not going to the moon, that's a whole different matter and just outright insulting to everyone involved, and again you'll have come to that from someone you want to believe telling you so. You wouldn't have come to that conclusion from your own free thought.