The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by Arcane ... "You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know when I put it in my mouth the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years you know what I realise? Ignorance is bliss" ―Cypher .For such people - ignorance is something they crave. They do not want to know because they prefer things to be just like they are. No truth - no problems! But that does not give you authority to decide that for everyone!

Sometimes?

If your guardians sheltered you from the world and teach you red is blue, guess what you miss out! Ignorance is (and opinions are) bliss i.e: blind (one-way or another) to reality\facts.

god$\evil-spaghetti\*(!)ANY-FAIRY-TAIL-IMAGINABLE(!)* ≠ reality this is kid sh#! hohoho "wake up Neo"

Originally Posted by Pastychomper ... Religion, even the other guy's religion, does not have a monopoly on power-drunk murderers.

Oh of course not and science makes mass murders like politics too but they don't run from reality like it's the plague,
at lest not as much as make believe. (Tho politics?! )

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs ... and that man who stones (or whatever) another man, "in the name of religion," is just a murderer. Nothing more or less.

Like your death-penalty?

Originally Posted by Pastychomper Thanks, enorbet - I can see my blanket statement about 'proving a negative' was ill-though-out, aka wrong, though I think it does apply to the "big negative:" it would be hard/impossible to disprove the existence of a god

I think this just a special case of the impossibility of (dis)proving anything at all, but somehow people get overly excited when it comes to god's (non)existence.

On another note, say your that kid who learned red is blue (i.e: wrong,) can everyone unlearn that? A no.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7qQ6_RV4VQ

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5502527

Time is a constant, that maybe all?

Time is not a constant at all since as an example, tests have shown that the perception of Slo Mo under stressful situations is not just a fluke of perception but an actual event in the Sense of Time in our brains. This is why roughly 30 frames/sec is required in video for seamless motion. That is the rate at which our brains normally handle/sample information. By contrast, the common housefly samples at 300 frames per second which is why they seem downright prescient when we attempt to swat them.

Einstein showed that Time is Relative and is in fact inseparable from Space as "Spacetime". It is meaningless to talk about one without the other much as in Geography, Cartography etc. a Northerly direction also implies the other 3 directions exist. This became especially important to refinement of the evolution of our Universe since shortly after the Big Bang it appears that the Universe expanded at superluminal rates (Inflationary Period) or it would be vastly smaller today than it is. Some Background Microwave Radiation left over from TBB seems to confirm this actually did occur as other options have been "weeded out". The inseparable nature of Spacetime made sense out of that seeming contradiction because the Big Bang did not occur inside some medium. Energy and Matter did not expand to fill existing Space since Space did not exist prior to TBB. So Space itself was studied and shown to be expanding, and since it is inextricably tied to Light, it is the one instance in which Light (or even objects/matter within Spacetime) can appear to attain superluminal speeds relative to other objects/particles in a state of angular velocity to each other..

This is particularly important since although tests showed that light does not propagate instantly but rather has a finite, and fixed speed in he late 1600s and this became a fundamental tenet in Einstein's Special Relativity. It utterly relies on "c" (the speed of light) being fixed and predicted that once measuring devices became fast and accurate enough, it would be found that Light cannot break that "speed limit" even if emitted by a rapidly moving object. The speeds do not add together as throwing a baseball from a moving car does. This was verified to be the actual occurrence in 1905 by Einstein and others and borne out time and time again as greater distances and speeds became possible. It is one of the fundamental principles as to why and how GPS can attain such incredible accuracy over such great distances.

Oooops! My apologies I got all wrapped up and "foamed at the mouth" OK....regrouping.... so yeah the speed of light is a precise constant and there are numerous other constants that are the basis often of entire branches of knowledge and inquiry. Example - Mathematics relies heavily on Constants but they are not necessarily indicative of reality but often act like a catalyst for example used to complete Step B and then removed in Step C. In chemistry, Avogadro's Constant which describes the number of atoms in a gram-molecule (one mole) is constant regardless of the element. Absolute Zero, -217.15 C or −459.67 F, (the temperature at which all atomic motion essentially ceases and the lowest possible energy state exists) has been around so long it has been confirmed ad infinitum.. It is thought of as Zero but it has been measured that Quantum Energy still persists which is why certain Quantum effects, like Super Conductivity, occur. In Physics and Cosmology etc Constants are discovered or deduced from real world data so there are fewer of them compared to Mathematics but as you can see more than just one, and none of them are Time.

Theoretical physics is better than religion but gives science a bad name there...

If we categorizes all the sciences and then do a poll on 'how many scientists are religions in each' TP (hehe) would more than likely towards the top?

People are saying maybe we need religious and you just don't realize it but how much of it is a waste ***, likely more than TP?

That's just today, 100?'s of years from now we won't need ether. Pun.

Just my cynical way; do we still need archaeologist, 2/3rds of the world will be dead real soon so why not?!

The future:

Originally Posted by enorbet ... @Jamison2000e ...

If you Plato, I mean say so... ta-da!

Add: theories should someday be proven or (like time travel) their god...

"god" can't stop us from doing anything that's how stupidity works, go ahead do anything; stupid, $tupidity will be forgiven!

Originally Posted by jamison20000e "god" can't stop us from doing anything that's how stupidity works, go ahead do anything; stupid, $tupidity will be forgiven!

Funny thing about that..why is that IQ factor so important?..even atheists contain stupid people who do not believe. So what? How does such two way thinking help anyone? In fact this is what confirms suspicion that atheists are not movement to discuss religious truth but a movement against God. So this is just what religious preachers do just with different symbols! While one is cherry picking religious themes the second is cherry picking scientific themes. Both are not trying to find truth to improve our lives but simply trying to win some specific war like children do! It is like Fanboy and Hateboy war about something - instead of complementing each other and open mind debate with arguments they just do not care about truth but about state of mind where other party just accepts their claim! So much for intelligence in both sides..

Originally Posted by Arcane Still do not get it? You can't use Science as a tool to proove or disproove God! God > Science. Science only describes laws around us and also are limited to our perception of reality. But who creates those rules? Who put everything real in motion? Also if you did not notice previous posts - original science admits easy there might be God because original science was created to find truth about world we live in. Whatever it might be. Heck! There might even be 4th option and we all might be wrong - no creation, no evolution and no aliens. But i get why you post such stuff. Matrix character answered that: For such people - ignorance is something they crave. They do not want to know because they prefer things to be just like they are. No truth - no problems! But that does not give you authority to decide that for everyone!

What!?! I don't get it? Dude I stated outright that being by nature OUTSIDE our Universe it is impossible to gather ANY evidence about that so it is a non-issue and as I also stated, one I rarely even care to speculate about at all since it has zero effect on my life and how I live it. Your bias OTOH shines through with ...

Originally Posted by Arcane original science admits easy there might be God

"Admits" implies some sort of begrudging concession probably delivered sotto voce which is ridiculous considering that there can be NO data at all. No evidence. Period. You also seem to downplay Science because it is limited to "our perception of reality" which utterly ignores the power of strict rules of evidence and peer review that never ends, going on for thousands of years availing itself of millions of critical thinking brains, not to mention wildly differing points of view (approaches) let alone constantly improving technology to both collect and analyze data, old and new. Science not only does not require a "who", it has shown that given the Big Bang with the yet unexplainable asymmetry between Matter and AntiMatter and an expanding, cooling Universe and the Reality of Evolution on all levels, things have proceeded pretty much as they had to. The Laws were inevitable. What happened before the Big Bang is presently unknowable and may never be knowable, not only by we humans but by any aliens that may possibly exist.

While I love that movie (The Matrix) too and he (Cypher) portrays an excellent sort of villain (lazy, morally corrupt, cowardly) but he and I have nothing in common. I don't crave mere perception and certainly can't abide with ignorance let alone prefer it. There is considerable evidence right here in this ongoing thread that I'm not lazy nor morally corrupt and at least a modicum of evidence that I'm not cowardly, but in all fairness this is the InterWebz where people are often far bolder than IRL. So, Where do you get this stuff? Oh right.... Science FICTION movies.

Originally Posted by Webster's Dictionary-Fiction Simple Definition of fiction : written stories about people and events that are not real : literature that tells stories which are imagined by the writer : something that is not true

I'm really not trying to beat you over the head with this but look.... you point your finger at Science saying it is just perception with little concern for the truth and then have the gall to point at me with provably untrue castigations just to further your safe, insulated shell. Where is the measured Truth in that? I, OTOH, have worked my ass off to study Higher Math, Physics, Logic, etc to advance in critical thinking exactly to get as much Truth as is humanly possible. It would seem you have more in common with the character Cypher, than I. You continually quote movies and videos, often Fiction, as if they would pass scrutiny in The Supreme Court as well as refer to ancient texts written by superstitious, agenda-ridden men in the business of unassailable "Truth"... no room for inquiry, analysis or even discussion under the threat of torture and death, and they wanted it locked down with no questions allowed, forever... the exact opposite of Science. Which is not only more likely to be real, which is more humane?

The greatest (or worst) personal transgression is this

Originally Posted by Arcane But that does not give you authority to decide that for everyone!

I implore you if you really do have any sense of Justice and desire for Truth, read back over my posts and I challenge you to find one single post... nay SENTENCE !, that I have ever made displaying that I think all should adopt my stance. Frankly, I think you owe me an apology.

@sundialsvcs - I really liked your most recent post. I feel confidant we could close half a dozen bars or coffee shops

@Jamison2000e - I have to read most of your posts 3 times, and that is actually a compliment of sorts. You freely associate like a gerbil on crack but I detect underlying creative brilliance.

@Arcane - I get it that you are a well-meaning decent man but I think you need to research where you draw your borders and be a bit more critical of Fiction as a source of Truth.

@Patsychomper - I didn't say no atheist has ever done wrong, even the worst (murder millions) but they mostly did not do it for religious reasons. They did it for Politics and Personal Power. Ultimately, wrong is just wrong no matter who with what convictions perpetrates it.

@ntubski - It is not impossible to disprove somethings. That's a myth or misconception. You may have missed this/these Disproof If this weren't so it would be impossible to prove one's Innocence which also equals disproving the accusation.

@rokytnjin - My confidence exceeds 90 percentile that you and I could and would close down bars and coffee shoppes (and maybe even a few concerts) for weeks on end. I realize (and agree) you don't need approval, but you have a sizable portion of mine.

@TobiSGD - I'm pleased to see you have a firm grasp of Logic and Science. Are you a coder?

^whistles -

Originally Posted by Townshend&Daltry Out here in the fields I fight for my meals I get my back into my living I don't need to fight To prove I'm right I don't need to be forgiven

I posted this at risk of being too personal just to recognize those that seem to return to hang out most. Quite lively!

I do apologize for something like 75% of the time I tend to rant especially if know the outcome takes "unimaginable tracks of time" we won't have. Unless you want to talk fairy tails again? Often the emojis dazzle me to the point I don't simplify my sentences along with again if we are just talking opinions!

Brings to mind, why be here 75% of the time; some people may know the answer to that?

Originally Posted by enorbet @ntubski - It is not impossible to disprove somethings. That's a myth or misconception. You may have missed this/these Disproof If this weren't so it would be impossible to prove one's Innocence which also equals disproving the accusation.

I was saying it's not possible to prove (to 100% certainty) anything at all. Of course, in real life we make do with 99% (or however much we can get) certainty, but then people seem to forget this when it comes to (dis)proving god.

(Before someone claims math/logic can give 100% certainty, remember that logical systems have to rely on unproven axioms. Plus, you might have made a mistake while conducting the proof.)

Somethings here and there are provable, manythings are not (makes sense to me.) To live we must be lead but only to a . beyond that we go solely on Human(\parental\*) constructs,,, right or wrong. ;-(

We can describe a sunset to a blind person as they feel the warmth fade tho we could also lie! Because they're blind so it's up to them to "trust" or not?


Add: Unprovable is not possibly.