Why I love atheists.

[PsyOps]

Or so they thought.

 

[McGinn77]

You can teach about Exodus just as much as you can teach about the big bang. There is no strict evidence that either happened. There is historical evidence of Exodus; and this being teachings that have been passed down through the millennia. We have at least that. But for some reason it’s perfectly legitimate to teach THEORY (such as the big bang) as fact in our schools; even though there is absolutely no historical evidence of it.

There is a lot our kids are taught in the context of what we believe is the truth. Perhaps if we had more responsible teachers and education system as a whole, things would be put in their proper context as to keep it neutral (i.e. “This is what the Jewish faith teaches about Exodus” or “This is what a large part of the scientific community believes about the origins of our universe”, “but we have no actual conclusive evidence to prove it’s true”). How hard would that be. Instead, we have teachers that have agendas to push their beliefs on our kids rather than just educate them on the possibilities.

scientific theory does not = wild guess, there is basis in fact and calculations and observation and peer review. I can't just go "I think there was a big bang" and it just becomes a theory. You can't pick and choose the definition of that word at will, there are two definitions and you have to stick with one in a single argument. The big bang for example is backed up by Hubbles Law.

Just because something was taught does not lend credence to it. Ancient and Classical Greece stood from the 8th century BCE until 404 BCE. During that time they taught about their gods, does that make their goods true? Does it give their goods credence?

 

[PsyOps]

scientific theory does not = wild guess, there is basis in fact and calculations and observation and peer review. I can't just go "I think there was a big bang" and it just becomes a theory. You can't pick and choose the definition of that word at will, there are two definitions and you have to stick with one in a single argument. The big bang for example is backed up by Hubbles Law.

In many cases, yes it does. All this talk about the big bang over the years and now... well, I was watching the History channel just the other night about this subject and now - that they can't substantiate the BB - two scientists are theorizing about the possibility of, rather than being one big bang, there being an endless number of ‘bangs’ constantly going off; and through this multiple parallel universes exist; perhaps an infinite number of universes.

So, now another debate begins within our scientific community for each to take sides. What do these geniuses say about Hubble’s Law? What about the 3 degree radiation background that supposedly supports a single big bang?

Just because something was taught does not lend credence to it. Ancient and Classical Greece stood from the 8th century BCE until 404 BCE. During that time they taught about their gods, does that make their goods true? Does it give their goods credence?

This has to be some sort of joke… Because it was taught, by millions of people over the millennia; has stood the test of time in those teachings does not lend credence to it? But conjure up a bunch of mathematical equations; make a few deep space observations and that lends credence to the truth that something happened billions of years ago when no one was even there; and that’s the basis in fact?

Look, these things boil down to what you BELIEVE, not what the actual truth might be. I’ve been through this exercise before so most folks here know where I stand. I’m not doubting whether there was a big bang, or multiple parallel universes, or black holes (things you can’t actually prove with empirical evidence), I’m just saying you can’t justify teaching one thing as fact while omitting another when both rely on large levels of faith that they are true.

 

[McGinn77]

So, now another debate begins within our scientific community for each to take sides. What do these geniuses say about Hubble’s Law? What about the 3 degree radiation background that supposedly supports a single big bang?

You clearly don't understand the science on this one, a second big bang in a secondary mulitverse has no effect on our big bag. It wouldn't have any more effect than my air conditioning has on the temperature of my neighbor's house because it's OUTSIDE our universe. I know the evidences you're talking about and it has to do with gravitational pull for galaxies to a single point in space. A multiverse is just one proposed explanation and this has not even been proposed as a scientific theory yet. Blame things like the History and Science channel for that because before they existed none of this would have come out to the general public until more work had been done.

This has to be some sort of joke… Because it was taught, by millions of people over the millennia; has stood the test of time in those teachings does not lend credence to it?

No, this statement is the joke, so we teach the Greek Mythological explanations, that was taught for at least 3 millennia. The Egyptians were around for 3000 years, teach theirs? "Hey kids, the sun is either a coalesced ball of super heated gas as all the science says, or the Christian god just turned it on, or it's Ra the sun good made manifest as a person in the form or Pharaohs, or it's the lantern of Apollo carried across the sky in a chariot, or.... "

Look, these things boil down to what you BELIEVE, not what the actual truth might be. I’ve been through this exercise before so most folks here know where I stand. I’m not doubting whether there was a big bang, or multiple parallel universes, or black holes (things you can’t actually prove with empirical evidence), I’m just saying you can’t justify teaching one thing as fact while omitting another when both rely on large levels of faith that they are true.

Black holes do exist, have been proven to exist and observed on multiple light spectrum including viable light. Don't confuse statements like "The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole." (describes how the search got started) Or "There is growing consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies." (a debate about placement). There is however debate on exactly what's happening in one, but their existence is observationaly provable.

 

[hvp05]

There is historical evidence of Exodus; and this being teachings that have been passed down through the millennia. We have at least that. But for some reason it’s perfectly legitimate to teach THEORY (such as the big bang) as fact in our schools; even though there is absolutely no historical evidence of it.

The part you left out is that it is taught as THEORY. (We do know what a "theory" technically is, don't we?) One of the first things I learned about in school was the scientific method; HOW science works. A million ideas or experiments may never confirm a theory as fact, but one can prove it wrong. When something is proven wrong or inaccurate in religion it makes no difference to the believers because they have faith. For one seeking 'truth', which approach is worse?

 

[PsyOps]

You clearly don't understand the science on this one, a second big bang in a secondary mulitverse has no effect on our big bag. It wouldn't have any more effect than my air conditioning has on the temperature of my neighbor's house because it's OUTSIDE our universe. I know the evidences you're talking about and it has to do with gravitational pull for galaxies to a single point in space. A multiverse is just one proposed explanation and this has not even been proposed as a scientific theory yet. Blame things like the History and Science channel for that because before they existed none of this would have come out to the general public until more work had been done.

Yeah… I get that all the time from folks that believe the way you do. If you consider the “string theory” commonly known as the “everything theory” (or as Hawking like to put it "The Theory of Everything) your assertion would be wrong. And your temperature theory would be wrong as well. If you could measure things in their most minute details, you’d probably show that the temps you set in your house could affect the temps in the house 5 down from yours.

As for a mulitverse theory (or M-Theory), as with all THEORIES, it is being considered just as possible as a big bang.

M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. Because the dimensionality exceeds the dimensionality of superstring theories in 10 dimensions, proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five string theories (and supersedes them). Though a full description of the theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes.

I’m not going to sit and do all of your homework for you on this. A little reading will reveal where science is headed on this. It’s not the History channel that is raising these theories; they had the top physicists explaining this, in their own words.

No, this statement is the joke, so we teach the Greek Mythological explanations, that was taught for at least 3 millennia. The Egyptians were around for 3000 years, teach theirs? "Hey kids, the sun is either a coalesced ball of super heated gas as all the science says, or the Christian god just turned it on, or it's Ra the sun good made manifest as a person in the form or Pharaohs, or it's the lantern of Apollo carried across the sky in a chariot, or.... "

Greek mythology is taught in our schools. Our schools teach about the Egyptians and their religious beliefs (which really don’t exist anymore). And you missed the part that I stated religion should be taught from an historical perspective and not preached as a necessary truth. They are still fundamental and historical facts that have defined who we are today. You propose to just pretend, because you believe they are all a bunch of myths, their existence isn’t relevant teachings.

Black holes do exist, have been proven to exist and observed on multiple light spectrum including viable light. Don't confuse statements like "The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole." (describes how the search got started) Or "There is growing consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies." (a debate about placement). There is however debate on exactly what's happening in one, but their existence is observationaly provable.

Really? You’ve seen one? You’ve actually been to one? I’m amazed so many people just believe what they are told about something in a place no one has been to. You’ll get my sarcasm later.

 

[McGinn77]

Really? You’ve seen one? You’ve actually been to one? I’m amazed so many people just believe what they are told about something in a place no one has been to. You’ll get my sarcasm later.

Yes, with a telescope with my own eyes as fed through a computer, I have. But I guess since it came through a computer it doesn't count, guess I'm just talking to myself on here too, you don't exist because you came through the computer. Even though it was real time observation just like this is.

As for a mulitverse theory (or M-Theory), as with all THEORIES, it is being considered just as possible as a big bang.

String theory does not contradict the Big Bang. It helps explain how it happened. New String-Theory Notion Redefines the Big Bang

I think you misunderstand. Yes religion has been a part of history and it's shaped history in good ways and bad and should be acknowledged as part of culture. What I'm saying is you can't teach that the Exodus actually happened when there is no evidence of it. You can say people believe it happened, but you can't say it did happen. I actually support teaching a class that shows how religions have shaped history both the good and the bad.

There is a HUGE difference between teaching the history of religion and teaching history according to religion.

Guess you missed this post. Don't worry, I did your homework for you on the thread.

 

[McGinn77]

If you consider the “string theory” commonly known as the “everything theory” (or as Hawking like to put it "The Theory of Everything) your assertion would be wrong.

Side note, Hawking works with Quantum Cosmology which is quite different than string theory, and "The Theory of Everything" is a book of collected lectures done by Hawking not a book by Hawking. He has objected to the book and sought to cease it's distribution. The real Hawking book is A Brief History of Time explaining Quantum Cosmology. You're welcome to borrow my copy, though I must warn you mine is the '96 version so it's 2 updates old. How many updates is your bible behind on?

 

[hvp05]

How many updates is your bible behind on?

In the next version, Jesus should breathe fire like a dragon. That would be cool.

 

[SoMD_Fun_Guy]

I never knew she was an atheist until that night we hooked up and I got her screamin "Oh my non-existent supreme being!" over and over again.



Sorry, I figured a joke was needed to lightin up the mood in this thread.
Maybe you 2 should drop it and go or cuz it's clear neither is gonna "win" this debate.

 

[McGinn77]

I never knew she was an atheist until that night we hooked up and I got her screamin "Oh my non-existent supreme being!" over and over again.



Sorry, I figured a joke was needed to lightin up the mood in this thread.
Maybe you 2 should drop it and go or cuz it's clear neither is gonna "win" this debate.

As an Atheist I'm a bigger fan of this one:

An atheist buys an ancient lamp at an auction, takes it home, and begins to polish it. Suddenly, a genie appears, and says, “I’ll grant you three wishes, Master.” The atheist says, “I wish I could believe in you.” The genie snaps his fingers, and suddenly the atheist believes in him. The atheist says, “Wow. I wish all atheists would believe this.” The genie snaps his fingers again, and suddenly atheists all over the world begin to believe in genies. “What about your third wish?” asks the genie. “Well,” says the atheist, “I wish for a billion dollars.” The genie snaps his fingers for a third time, but nothing happens. “What’s wrong?” asks the atheist. The genie shrugs and says, “Just because you believe in me, doesn’t necessarily mean that I really exist.”

 

[UNA]

Deja vu Psy!

...for some reason it’s perfectly legitimate to teach THEORY (such as the big bang) as fact in our schools; even though there is absolutely no historical evidence of it.

They don't teach it as fact, they teach it as theory.

...two scientists are theorizing about the possibility of, rather than being one big bang, there being an endless number of ‘bangs’ constantly going off; and through this multiple parallel universes exist; perhaps an infinite number of universes.

So, now another debate begins within our scientific community for each to take sides. What do these geniuses say about Hubble’s Law? What about the 3 degree radiation background that supposedly supports a single big bang?

I don't think you understand how the scientific community works (generally). There are no 'sides', no one if fighting, we're just looking. Looking for the proof of whatever it is we're hypothesizing. When something is found to be wrong, we reevaluate rather than ignore.

M-theory is a modified-hypothesis rather than a contradiction to the Big Bang theory and it is being investigated by some scientists. Having a theory then finding the possible need for a modification doesn't mean it's ALL wrong, it means we need to look at things again (or keep looking...)

I’m not doubting whether there was a big bang, or multiple parallel universes, or black holes (things you can’t actually prove with empirical evidence), I’m just saying you can’t justify teaching one thing as fact while omitting another when both rely on large levels of faith that they are true.

But you [seem] to be equating science and religion. And in a very few ways they are similar; science STARTS with faith or belief. After all, it was a monk who laid the groundwork for genetics! A lot of time, a hypothesis starts out with someone saying "I think x is true, I believe it might be", then they seek the evidence and so on...if they find proof, they publish then every scientist in the field tries to prove you wrong. I think the general standard is 3 years for something to stand before it's considered fact but I'm not sure. So science starts with a belief, then grows based on facts...rather than fight said facts.

Yeah… I get that all the time from folks that believe the way you do. If you consider the “string theory” commonly known as the “everything theory” (or as Hawking like to put it "The Theory of Everything) your assertion would be wrong. And your temperature theory would be wrong as well. If you could measure things in their most minute details, you’d probably show that the temps you set in your house could affect the temps in the house 5 down from yours.

String theory is not 'commonly known as' the everything theory. It attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity and is a contender for the TOE. There are those that do indeed believe it is, but they don't walk around say it's fact because they don't have the proof yet.

As for a mulitverse theory (or M-Theory), as with all THEORIES, it is being considered just as possible as a big bang.

Do you view theories as inferior to facts?

Really? You’ve seen one? You’ve actually been to one? I’m amazed so many people just believe what they are told about something in a place no one has been to. You’ll get my sarcasm later.

I haven't but we can go to the VLT and see it together!

 

[UNA]

How many updates is your bible behind on?

In the next version, Jesus should breathe fire like a dragon. That would be cool.

BLASPHEMER!

 

[PsyOps]

I don't think you understand how the scientific community works (generally).

Second time today. There's no point in having a discussion with people that believe they're so far more educated than anyone else that they can make such assumptions.

 

[McGinn77]

Second time today. There's no point in having a discussion with people that believe they're so far more educated than anyone else that they can make such assumptions.

It's not a question of being more educated, it's a question of willingness to have elasticity of thought.

 

[This_person]

It's not a question of being more educated, it's a question of willingness to have elasticity of thought.

So, you openly accept Psy's point of view?

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

It's not a question of being more educated, it's a question of willingness to have elasticity of thought.

So, you openly accept Psy's point of view?

I openly admit that I cannot disprove the existence of god. I can disprove individual things from Christian dogma but I cannot disprove god. That said, not being able to disprove god is not evidence of god or the historic accuracy of the bible. I have been presented with clear evidence of some things in the bible (mostly the Apostle Paul and his evangelism) and yes I freely admit, that did happen.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



I openly admit that I cannot disprove the existence of god. I can disprove individual things from Christian dogma but I cannot disprove god. That said, not being able to disprove god is not evidence of god or the historic accuracy of the bible. I have been presented with clear evidence of some things in the bible (mostly the Apostle Paul and his evangelism) and yes I freely admit, that did happen.

you cannot prove a lot of things - one of them being macro-evolution. I'm not sure what you feel is "disprovable" from Christian "dogma", but I suspect you can only provide a logic path that makes you believe it's highly unlikely.

Micro-evolution - clearly provable as one of the possibilities for changes in species. Macro-evolution? Clearly can't be proven.

I guess that makes it a religion?

 

[UNA]

Second time today. There's no point in having a discussion with people that believe they're so far more educated than anyone else that they can make such assumptions.

I certainly never said that and definitely never intended to imply it; if that's the impression you got than I apologize!! I actually figured you were pretty well educated; hence the well thought out responses that don'r solely rely on emotion

Disagreement shouldn't imply disrespect.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I openly admit that I cannot disprove the existence of god. I can disprove individual things from Christian dogma but I cannot disprove god. That said, not being able to disprove god is not evidence of god or the historic accuracy of the bible. I have been presented with clear evidence of some things in the bible (mostly the Apostle Paul and his evangelism) and yes I freely admit, that did happen.

you cannot prove a lot of things - one of them being macro-evolution. I'm not sure what you feel is "disprovable" from Christian "dogma", but I suspect you can only provide a logic path that makes you believe it's highly unlikely.

Micro-evolution - clearly provable as one of the possibilities for changes in species. Macro-evolution? Clearly can't be proven.

I guess that makes it a religion?

What I can disprove is a global flood and a few other things. And in case I wasn't clear on the I cannot PROVE much of the science but I have reliable evidence. There is no evidence (in the scientific terms) for the existence of god.