non-christians: who has read the bible?

[donwuan]

What is this "ethering" you speak of? Is this what played out in that pea brain of yours? Not once did you EVER ether any of my arguments. According to you every single astrophysicist is wrong, and you are right. So all I asked was for you to explain your methodology. You couldn't. Therefore you're an idiot. NOBODY is going to take your word over experts in the field. NO ONE. You like to read yourself type, and nothing more.

You hold the record for being ocked and owned. Fake ass graphic designer. Where's the flash bitch? How many times should you have just shut the fuck up? You just the nigga in the gay club taking pictures for $10. San Francisco fag.

 

[Count23]

reaching a rational conclusion about nature based on our experience doesn't require any in-depth nothing. ur right, no man is an expert in every subject but does it really take a rocket scientist brain to see the irrationality in stuff like sizeless matter with finite mass, particles whose mass is less than the mass of constituent sub-particles, matter appearing outta no where, etc. I dare anyone of y'all to rationalize this shit. You can't. The establishment has conditioned u to accept, without question, that science and common sense are incompatible. Shit's just weird like that.
Nope. It's not respect, it's blind faith. Respect is a privilege u give to something based on ur subjective judgement.

But it's very different from "I believe it because I've always believed it and everyone in my family believes it and I'd be sad if Grandma isn't in heaven."

It's EXACTLY the same. Tell a religious zealot that his faith isn't founded on demonstrated track record and consensus. And there is absolutely nothing scientific about Obama having faith or trust in Geithner's abilities. Dude makes a call based on his judgment. Bad analogy.

Not once have I argued that religious beliefs aren't irrational. But ur gonna have to find some objective criteria or metric for calibrating degree of difference in rationality or craziness between, for example, an empirically unverifiable "theory" that suggests that you'd shrink in size or completely vanish as u approach the speed of light and a story about a bearded man who can walk on water in sandals. Until u can come up with this, ur inequality of gaps argument is just an opinion. which is fine.

you're gonna have to clarify what exactly do you mean by 'common sense'.

for many people when they look around at the earth, it's 'common sense' to say that it was magically designed, as opposed to everything being apart of many long processes.

to look up at the sun, it's 'common sense' to say that it revolves around the earth.

to look up at a full moon it's 'common sense to say that it gives off it's own light.

to look at whales/dolphins it's 'common sense' to say that they're fish etc.

'common sense' is relative.

 

[Count23]

.......................

 

[Count23]

.......................

 

[gene cisco]

What's the irony?

There's a difference between not thinking and not thinking in-depth. No man is an expert on every subject but there's something to be said for how one fills in the gaps. Plenty of people accept the theory of evolution, for instance, without fully understanding it but have a respect for scientific principles and are at ease throwing their lot in with that set of explanations rather than the Noah's Ark story.

I'm not advocating this as the optimum level of thinking. But it's very different from "I believe it because I've always believed it and everyone in my family believes it and I'd be sad if Grandma isn't in heaven." Barack Obama "having faith in," say, Tim Geithner and deferring to his superior knowledge in his area of expertise is not blind faith. There's nothing blind about it and the "faith" or trust is based upon a demonstrated track record-- reason. If George Bush, on the other hand, believed God was with him in his efforts in Iraq and the mission was destined to succeed because a God nobody can see is on our side... That's blind faith. It's a TOTALLY different way of filling in the gaps. Not all gap-filling is equal.

How much damage has been done due to that line of thinking throughout our history?

You are right, all gap filling is not equal. Arguing about this is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[fourth_retired]

nature has too much "order" for there not to be some sort of centralized energy attached to it. This centralized energy is what I believe is God.

scientist work feverishly to try to find out how God's mind works and still everything is just theories that just scratch the surface.

 

[exiledking]

How much damage has been done due to that line of thinking throughout our history?

You are right, all gap filling is not equal. Arguing about this is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

And THIS, gentlemen, is Sean69's SCHTICK.

Thank you, and good night.

 

[sean69]

How much damage has been done due to that line of thinking throughout our history?
You are right, all gap filling is not equal. Arguing about this is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

And THIS, gentlemen, is Sean69's SCHTICK.

Thank you, and good night.

riiight. remember what I said earlier about arguments based on opinion being circular?
No my friends, u actually have to back up shit u put out. if u can't then keep it to urself, find someone agreeable and gullible enough to c/s it or just tag it with the infamous "imo". U set the bar at logic and objectivity not me. Fine. Break the argument down to "degree or rationality". Which is actually meaningless when u think about it. It's like talking about a logical basis for logic. All i'm hearing is a bunch of subjective personal experience shit. All gap fillings aren't equal. Sure. But decided by what objective criteria? Can't eat ur cake and have it. And it's safe to say this discussion has come full circle. ha

 

[Count23]

^^sean, you're still gonna have to explain what you meant by 'common sense' (see my response near the top of the page)

 

[JD Walker]

You hold the record for being ocked and owned. Fake ass graphic designer. Where's the flash bitch? How many times should you have just shut the fuck up? You just the nigga in the gay club taking pictures for $10. San Francisco fag.

...you used to be the donwuan... Now your name is just "'toine"...

That nigga fine. No homo. I'm so confused.

 

[gene cisco]

remember what I said earlier about arguments based on opinion being circular?
No my friends, u actually have to back up shit u put out. if u can't then keep it to urself, find someone agreeable and gullible enough to c/s it or just tag it with the infamous "imo". U set the bar at logic and objectivity not me. Fine. Break the argument down to "degree or rationality". Which is actually meaningless when u think about it. It's like talking about a logical basis for logic. All i'm hearing is a bunch of subjective personal experience shit. All gap fillings aren't equal. Sure. But decided by what objective criteria? Can't eat ur cake and have it. And it's safe to say this discussion has come full circle.

But when I asked you to show proof of non-believers acting crazy in the name of non-belief(or science) you failed to show any. Religious folks just burned a witch in Africa. What crazy shit can you fill a gap with to think somebody is a damn witch? The fact is people who are non-believers don't find anything as bad as religion to replace religion with(in most cases).

Damn bruh, we know you are smart but you strike me as the type.........

Me: "these peas are green!"
Sean69: "well actually, they are not green, that is what you think you are observing, and by the way, can you prove that those non-green peas you are eating even exist?"
Me: "Come on Sean69 cut the shit and go watch the Celtics game!!!"

 

[sean69]

you're gonna have to clarify what exactly do you mean by 'common sense'.

for many people when they look around at the earth, it's 'common sense' to say that it was magically designed, as opposed to everything being apart of many long processes.

to look up at the sun, it's 'common sense' to say that it revolves around the earth.

to look up at a full moon it's 'common sense to say that it gives off it's own light.

to look at whales/dolphins it's 'common sense' to say that they're fish etc.

'common sense' is relative.

the human brain was wired by evolution to make sense of the world (that humans lived in at the time) through reification and metaphorical thought. We we're built to make sense of the world through GR, QM, Genetics and the Standard Model. Some scientists have convinced "lay-people" that where intuition fails, they have to create new forms of intuition using abstract mathematics. That we've gone out of the range of experience. Some have even gone as far as to say that "if something fits in with common sense it almost certainly isn't science" (see:"The Un-natural Nature of Science").

So if Count23 want to make sense of how one of the 3 quarks in a proton can be heavier than the proton itself he's just gonna have to get a PhD. in particle physics or stfu regardless of what he was taught about mass and matter in high school.

Yeah, some of science's insights into nature violate common sense intuition, not denying that, but ultimately, scientific truth MUST be established on empirical grounds. And frankly some of the bullshit out there (String Theory being the poster child "faith based initiative" of science) is not. I say people need to man the fuck up instead of being pussies about questioning shit that fucks with their intuition, even though they may possibly be wrong. Or just stfu and let other think for them? Whatever works.

Einstein once clowned common sense as "the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18". Ironically his common sense position on local realism was a prejudice he took to the grave even after science proved it false.

 

[sean69]

But when I asked you to show proof of non-believers acting crazy in the name of non-belief(or science) you failed to show any. Religious folks just burned a witch in Africa. What crazy shit can you fill a gap with to think somebody is a damn witch? The fact is people who are non-believers don't find anything as bad as religion to replace religion with(in most cases).

Damn bruh, we know you are smart but you strike me as the type.........

Me: "these peas are green!"
Sean69: "well actually, they are not green, that is what you think you are observing, and by the way, can you prove that those non-green peas you are eating even exist?"
Me: "Come on Sean69 cut the shit and go watch the Celtics game!!!"

1) already told u i'm not gonna play that show me urs i'll show u mine bullshit. and i explained more than once why. I'm sure there's a bunch of bgol members u can find get into all that. If ur really convinced that fucked up shit has never been done in the name of science or other non-religious secular beliefs prejudices and ideologies, there's no amount of examples I can give that'll convince u.
2) lol @ that exchange. so, are u for or against proof? can't have it both ways lol.
3) technically the peas are red

 

[exiledking]

the human brain was wired by evolution to make sense of the world (that humans lived in at the time) through reification and metaphorical thought. We we're built to make sense of the world through GR, QM, Genetics and the Standard Model. Some scientists have convinced "lay-people" that where intuition fails, they have to create new forms of intuition using abstract mathematics. That we've gone out of the range of experience. Some have even gone as far as to say that "if something fits in with common sense it almost certainly isn't science" (see:"The Un-natural Nature of Science").

So if Count23 want to make sense of how one of the 3 quarks in a proton can be heavier than the proton itself he's just gonna have to get a PhD. in particle physics or stfu regardless of what he was taught about mass and matter in high school.

Yeah, some of science's insights into nature violate common sense intuition, not denying that, but ultimately, scientific truth MUST be established on empirical grounds. And frankly some of the bullshit out there (String Theory being the poster child "faith based initiative" of science) is not. I say people need to man the fuck up instead of being pussies about questioning shit that fucks with their intuition, even though they may possibly be wrong. Or just stfu and let other think for them? Whatever works.

Einstein once clowned common sense as "the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18". Ironically his common sense position on local realism was a prejudice he took to the grave even after science proved it false.

you've lost us Shawnny... and you try to do it on purpose.

You're like a musician who runs a bunch of scales in a solo to show what he knows, but none of it moves the crowd.

A rapper who is all "lyrical miracle" but aint said a word that's relevant to anyone in the cypher.

A self professed non believer who claims his non belief is more relevant than the rest of em. wow

 

[sean69]

you've lost us Shawnny... and you try to do it on purpose.

You're like a musician who runs a bunch of scales in a solo to show what he knows, but none of it moves the crowd.

A rapper who is all "lyrical miracle" but aint said a word that's relevant to anyone in the cypher.

A self professed non believer who claims his non belief is more relevant than the rest of em. wow

Us? lol. Sorry bruh. GPS ur way back or ur on ur own. u got jokes though. gotta give u that much.

 

[Count23]

you're gonna have to clarify what exactly do you mean by 'common sense'.

for many people when they look around at the earth, it's 'common sense' to say that it was magically designed, as opposed to everything being apart of many long processes.

to look up at the sun, it's 'common sense' to say that it revolves around the earth.

to look up at a full moon it's 'common sense to say that it gives off it's own light.

to look at whales/dolphins it's 'common sense' to say that they're fish etc.

'common sense' is relative.

the human brain was wired by evolution to make sense of the world (that humans lived in at the time) through reification and metaphorical thought. We we're built to make sense of the world through GR, QM, Genetics and the Standard Model. Some scientists have convinced "lay-people" that where intuition fails, they have to create new forms of intuition using abstract mathematics. That we've gone out of the range of experience. Some have even gone as far as to say that "if something fits in with common sense it almost certainly isn't science" (see:"The Un-natural Nature of Science").

So if Count23 want to make sense of how one of the 3 quarks in a proton can be heavier than the proton itself he's just gonna have to get a PhD. in particle physics or stfu regardless of what he was taught about mass and matter in high school.

Yeah, some of science's insights into nature violate common sense intuition, not denying that, but ultimately, scientific truth MUST be established on empirical grounds. And frankly some of the bullshit out there (String Theory being the poster child "faith based initiative" of science) is not. I say people need to man the fuck up instead of being pussies about questioning shit that fucks with their intuition, even though they may possibly be wrong. Or just stfu and let other think for them? Whatever works.

Einstein once clowned common sense as "the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18". Ironically his common sense position on local realism was a prejudice he took to the grave even after science proved it false.

so essentially your position is 'pics or stfu' (metaphorically speaking) when it comes to making truth claims, whether it be scientific or religious?

 

[sean69]

so essentially your position is 'pics or stfu' (metaphorically speaking) when it comes to making truth claims, whether it be scientific or religious?

that's SCIENCE'S position. The scientific method = testing assertions that are logical consequences of scientific theories through experiments. aka, observational studies. But hey, don't take my word for it.

ok. let's get beyond this science vs religion circular bs. lemme ask u this. if someone came up to u and told u that there was an extremely dense massive object in front of u but u can't see it and the reason u can't see it has nothing to do with ur optical limitations but rather because the object itself has zero size. what would u say?

 

[Count23]

that's SCIENCE'S position. The scientific method = testing assertions that are logical consequences of scientific theories through experiments. aka, observational studies. But hey, don't take my word for it.

ok. let's get beyond this science vs religion circular bs. lemme ask u this. if someone came up to u and told u that there was an extremely dense massive object in front of u but u can't see it and the reason u can't see it has nothing to do with ur optical limitations but rather because the object itself has zero size. what would u say?

to pass me some of the shroomz they're poppin

 

[sean69]

to pass me some of the shroomz they're poppin

compliments of stephen hawking n co.

 

[dasmybikepunk]

Scared to touch me huh?

Second reply same thread!

Slave religion!

 

[Costanza]

reaching a rational conclusion about nature based on our experience doesn't require any in-depth nothing. ur right, no man is an expert in every subject but does it really take a rocket scientist brain to see the irrationality in stuff like sizeless matter with finite mass, particles whose mass is less than the mass of constituent sub-particles, matter appearing outta no where, etc. I dare anyone of y'all to rationalize this shit. You can't. The establishment has conditioned u to accept, without question, that science and common sense are incompatible. Shit's just weird like that.
Nope. It's not respect, it's blind faith. Respect is a privilege u give to something based on ur subjective judgement.

Perhaps you should start a thread about concepts people have been conditioned to accept. I think any of the examples you listed above would be greeted with "How could I have been conditioned to accept something I've never even thought about?"

You can't make the false equation between the refusal to question religious dogma/principles and the way atheists look at science. The concepts expressed by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow below are not gospel or even commonplace among everyday atheists:





It may not take a rocket scientist to see the supposed irrationality in "sizeless matter with finite mass, particles whose mass is less than the mass of constituent sub-particles, matter appearing outta no where, [ect]" but it takes a rocket scientist to care about that sort of thing, generally-- or that type. It is a lot more complicated than memorizing Genesis and it's a lot less common for an atheist to be talk about (or even think about) than for a theist to talk about God and miracles.

But it's very different from "I believe it because I've always believed it and everyone in my family believes it and I'd be sad if Grandma isn't in heaven."

It's EXACTLY the same. Tell a religious zealot that his faith isn't founded on demonstrated track record and consensus. And there is absolutely nothing scientific about Obama having faith or trust in Geithner's abilities. Dude makes a call based on his judgment. Bad analogy.

Not once have I argued that religious beliefs aren't irrational. But ur gonna have to find some objective criteria or metric for calibrating degree of difference in rationality or craziness between, for example, an empirically unverifiable "theory" that suggests that you'd shrink in size or completely vanish as u approach the speed of light and a story about a bearded man who can walk on water in sandals. Until u can come up with this, ur inequality of gaps argument is just an opinion. which is fine.

I think a lot of this is addressed above but on the "bad analogy"--- I wasn't making it out to be a scientific decision at all. The analogy is about the difference between rational decision making and religious decision making. The Geithner example shows rational decision to defer with someone with a greater expertise in an issue. And, all gap-filling not being equal, obviously a certain measure of doubt is maintained. He may have been the wrong person to defer to. It's not at all like religious faith-- the contrasting fatalist George Bush manifest destiny approach largely rules that out. Most atheists are agnostic to a degree and don't have the certitude in their beliefs as does someone who thinks they know God's ways and will.

 

[sean69]

Perhaps you should start a thread about concepts people have been conditioned to accept. I think any of the examples you listed above would be greeted with "How could I have been conditioned to accept something I've never even thought about?"

I'll pass. I already have more productive on-going threads on a physics forum. The conflation of mathematical truths and physical reality is the problem. Ref: http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=9185255&postcount=19
Besides, I don't need a thread on bgol to convince me of something that's been thoroughly researched.
*edit* on second thought, i'm gonna make a thread and post an excerpt from an article about reason and reality. let's see what happens...

You can't make the false equation between the refusal to question religious dogma/principles and the way atheists look at science. The concepts expressed by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow below are not gospel or even commonplace among everyday atheists:

Since you seem to be an expert on how atheists think i'll concede. But regardless of what you think, General Relativity--the foundational theory for Hawking's surrealistic black-holes, space warps and singularities--IS gospel truth, compliments of peer review.

It may not take a rocket scientist to see the supposed irrationality in "sizeless matter with finite mass, particles whose mass is less than the mass of constituent sub-particles, matter appearing outta no where, [ect]" but it takes a rocket scientist to care about that sort of thing, generally-- or that type. It is a lot more complicated than memorizing Genesis and it's a lot less common for an atheist to be talk about (or even think about) than for a theist to talk about God and miracles.

So someone believes in something they don't understand and somehow it's acceptable because they don't really care about it like that anyway? If this is what you're saying...BULLSHIT.

I think a lot of this is addressed above but on the "bad analogy"--- I wasn't making it out to be a scientific decision at all. The analogy is about the difference between rational decision making and religious decision making. The Geithner example shows rational decision to defer with someone with a greater expertise in an issue. And, all gap-filling not being equal, obviously a certain measure of doubt is maintained. He may have been the wrong person to defer to. It's not at all like religious faith-- the contrasting fatalist George Bush manifest destiny approach largely rules that out. Most atheists are agnostic to a degree and don't have the certitude in their beliefs as does someone who thinks they know God's ways and will.

But the scientific criteria is the bar that you atheists have set. You can't go back on it now because it's inconvenient. All decision making (not some, ALL) involve a combination of rationale and emotions. So any argument based on the bifurcated comparison of rational vs religious decision making is an argument based on bullshit premise.

 

[AtomAnt]

I only have one Saviour and the is the Most High. I don't give a fuck about a New world Order, Illuminati or whatever conspiracy is out there....

My my my nigga you got it all upside down! You got the shit all twisted !! Its not your fault though because it is exactly the way they want you to think the way they have set you up and now youre just playing into their hands!!! Theyre pulling the strings and youre jumping You got your head stuck deep in your ass between Democrats and Republicans when they are in fact two sides of the same coin Now guess who owns that coin?!? Exactly you guessed it! It is the muthafuckaz that you really dont give a fuck about - the Illuminati

The point of it all iz that it doesnt matter if whether you give a fuck about them because they actually give a fuck about you You dont rule them they rule over you in fact nigga they own your sorry ass Its like this they've been controlling your life in the shadows since you been conceived and you dont even know it! (no dissin' intended as its the same for err'one)
Nigga they got you by the balls and theyre not about to let go Now they want a strangle hold of your mind by introducing the mark of the beast also called the computer microchip Well youre already letting them have a piece of your mind if you believe the bullshit that they put in front of you

Finally this is the most tricky part of it all - you say you only have one saviour who is the most high! BRUTHA WHAT AM ABOUT TO TELL YOU COULD MAKE YOU END UP IN A MENTAL WARD BRUH THEREFORE BE CAREFUL BECAUSE IT IS THIS SAME MUTHAFUCKAZ THAT YOU DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THAT CREATED YOUR MOST HIGH SAVIOUR NIGGA THESE BITCHES THEY CREATED EVERYTHING THE SCHOOLS YOU BEEN GOING SINCE CHILDHOOD THE CHURCH YOU GO TO WORSHIP THEY CREATED THE LAWS THE COMMUNITIES NIGGA THEY CREATED IT ALLLLL and you sitting there thinking theyre just coming on the scene now

Nigga we're being ruled by fucking bitches who own it all control it all created it all the reality is that we are at their mercy not the other way round therefore all we can really do is sit around and hope that they dont reap out our very souls alive

 

[Deuterion]

My my my nigga you got it all upside down! You got the shit all twisted !! Its not your fault though because it is exactly the way they want you to think the way they have set you up and now youre just playing into their hands!!! Theyre pulling the strings and youre jumping You got your head stuck deep in your ass between Democrats and Republicans when they are in fact two sides of the same coin Now guess who owns that coin?!? Exactly you guessed it! It is the muthafuckaz that you really dont give a fuck about - the Illuminati

The point of it all iz that it doesnt matter if whether you give a fuck about them because they actually give a fuck about you You dont rule them they rule over you in fact nigga they own your sorry ass Its like this they've been controlling your life in the shadows since you been conceived and you dont even know it! (no dissin' intended as its the same for err'one)
Nigga they got you by the balls and theyre not about to let go Now they want a strangle hold of your mind by introducing the mark of the beast also called the computer microchip Well youre already letting them have a piece of your mind if you believe the bullshit that they put in front of you

Finally this is the most tricky part of it all - you say you only have one saviour who is the most high! BRUTHA WHAT AM ABOUT TO TELL YOU COULD MAKE YOU END UP IN A MENTAL WARD BRUH THEREFORE BE CAREFUL BECAUSE IT IS THIS SAME MUTHAFUCKAZ THAT YOU DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THAT CREATED YOUR MOST HIGH SAVIOUR NIGGA THESE BITCHES THEY CREATED EVERYTHING THE SCHOOLS YOU BEEN GOING SINCE CHILDHOOD THE CHURCH YOU GO TO WORSHIP THEY CREATED THE LAWS THE COMMUNITIES NIGGA THEY CREATED IT ALLLLL and you sitting there thinking theyre just coming on the scene now

Nigga we're being ruled by fucking bitches who own it all control it all created it all the reality is that we are at their mercy not the other way round therefore all we can really do is sit around and hope that they dont reap out our very souls alive

GOT DAMN. PREACH!!

 

[AtomAnt]

GOT DAMN. PREACH!!

I'm just sayin' bruh..... I'm just sayin'