RE: Any atheists here?

RE: Any atheists here? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:54:16 PM)
There are no testable hypotheses on the theories I have listed above are they still science?..Yes but they take faith to believe.

NumberSix -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 4:56:03 PM)
OK, Butch....I accept the point. Just as happened with the aether, taken on faith, it is provably wrong in context, but based on dark matter theories these days may have some vestigal uses. So, propose me a Michealson-Morley sort of experiment on this god fucker. Has to be widely repeatable. Is or isn't something to it. There is where the shit hits the god-fan for me. Ron

Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:01:58 PM)
This discussion alone should be proof of infinity. Nothing in science is ever known with certainly. If it were, we'd no longer be discussing science. Einstein showed us that Newton got it wrong, that gravity was much more than we'd imagined----but my apple still falls. This is WHY science can and does grow and expand. Knowing with certainty, however, is self-delusional and never science. This is the realm of faith, unable to grow beyond it's borders. No scientist would ever attempt to "disprove faith in a God," as you put it. The question isn't scientific, as it isn't testable. A scientist WOULD point out that this makes the same impossible to prove. And before someone attacks my use of the language---of course we can prove people have faith in a God or not. I think you mean proving the existence of a God or perhaps the validity of religious practices beyond faith.

kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:02:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NumberSix OK, Butch....I accept the point. Just as happened with the aether, taken on faith, it is provably wrong in context, but based on dark matter theories these days may have some vestigal uses. So, propose me a Michealson-Morley sort of experiment on this god fucker. Has to be widely repeatable. Is or isn't something to it. There is where the shit hits the god-fan for me. Ron I can't Ron and don’t make that claim. I just have faith that there is a source...not sure if it is a personal God or not...I would rather believe in a source than oblivion. To me without a source there is no sense in existence. I can't be absolutely sure of any of my thoughts and feelings... But I don’t see how science can be used to disprove by beliefs when most of science is based on faith as well. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:04:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This discussion alone should be proof of infinity. Nothing in science is ever known with certainly. If it were, we'd no longer be discussing science. Einstein showed us that Newton got it wrong, that gravity was much more than we'd imagined----but my apple still falls. This is WHY science can and does grow and expand. Knowing with certainty, however, is self-delusional and never science. This is the realm of faith, unable to grow beyond it's borders. No scientist would ever attempt to "disprove faith in a God," as you put it. The question isn't scientific, as it isn't testable. A scientist WOULD point out that this makes the same impossible to prove. And before someone attacks my use of the language---of course we can prove people have faith in a God or not. I think you mean proving the existence of a God or perhaps the validity of religious practices beyond faith. So we agree Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:05:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub There are no testable hypotheses on the theories I have listed above are they still science?..Yes but they take faith to believe. You are wrong. We can observe light, for instance, and its absence, occurring or not where the hypothesis predicts. For example---we started listening to Einstein after an eclipse allowed us to observe stars in the "wrong" position, in line with his claim that gravity (of the sun) would bend light (from the star).

NumberSix -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:06:34 PM)
This discussion alone should be proof of infinity. LOLOLOLOL. We hold these truths to be self-evident..... Someday, Tim, you and me have to sit down, have some beers and talk smart. That is profound in its implications. Ron

Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:10:05 PM)
Agreed. B's just not getting the premise (and doesn't really want to anyway). Minnesota and New York will have to exert their gravitation pull and make that beer fueled conversation reality. Live well, Tim

kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:10:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub There are no testable hypotheses on the theories I have listed above are they still science?..Yes but they take faith to believe. You are wrong. We can observe light, for instance, and its absence, occurring or not where the hypothesis predicts. For example---we started listening to Einstein after an eclipse allowed us to observe stars in the "wrong" position, in line with his claim that gravity (of the sun) would bend light (from the star). But science does not really know what light is...what it consists of...what we are really seeing. how many times in the past as science been wrong. There is no absolute proof there. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:12:42 PM)
lol... I agree it has gone on long enough... we are just two sides of an impossible to settle argument. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:14:29 PM)
B, photons. They're subatomic particles that can be waves or particles. And you need to reread the previous posts. New meaning to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:19:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery B, photons. They're subatomic particles that can be waves or particles. And you need to reread the previous posts. New meaning to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Just theories.. maybe the new collider will give further insight into light...maybe it will just uncover more mysteries to theorize over… I have faith in that. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:21:20 PM)
Nope. Observable and observed for several decades now. Even measured.

NormalOutside -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:27:58 PM)
The text "Any atheists here?" spawned 11 pages of discussion? Wow. :p Agnostic with atheistic tendencies here. :-D Brought up in a Protestant (generic Christian) home, sheltered and brainwashed (in a loving way hehe) until 20 or so. Figured out that it was all a big joke within 5 years or so, but by that time was in a marriage with an unsexual Christian battle-axe. That had to go, too. And my relationship with my children is strained, because my ex is raising them the way I was raised, and I don't have the legal clout to do anything about it, and she won't be reasoned with. So yeah, religion got me into a mess, and is keeping me from fully getting out of it. Nevertheless, I don't resent my parents for teaching it to me - but I resent them for not giving me any alternative and hiding reality from me for so long.

kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:32:39 PM)
Nope just guessed at for now. There is still much debate on what light is in the scientific community. BUT we both understand what the other is saying… you just don’t believe I am right…And I am not sure your are wrong. Lets just let others read and decide for themselves… no sense arguing past a point...and we have reached it. Butch

NumberSix -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:34:25 PM)
GODDAMMIT!!!!! I had a long and extremely clever post that just went in the bit bucket. Well, I will not reprise it here, but go right to the peroration. We are not inclined to prove the entire existance of god. There is no need to eat a whole elephant at once, when we can eat it one bite at a time. This of course will have to be a gedankan experiment (ala Einstein) and we will hold the proof to the general theory of Einstein before the math. Light, is all encompassing, and everywhere, and travels thru the vale in predictable ways. That is pretty much the first premise of Einsteins e=m(cc) where c is celerity (light) so, as we have been instructed, god is light. god is everywhere. What (if not repeatable immediately) is a pervasive, observable phenomenon that will suffice to lead to the existance of god from which we begin building the theory precept by precept? What in general can we say here? God is love God forgives (of course he does thats his job and why I aint going to hell, I am calling him on that little misjudgement as far as Ron is concerned) Anything else? god does not interfere? (uh, well I will have something to say about that property later) Anyone? Billy Graham? Enrico Fermi? Gallileo? St. Augustine?* 6

kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:36:42 PM)
I forgive you my son

NumberSix -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 5:45:17 PM)
Gedanks....Butch. Helio-centric Ron (a play on the word sun, as is often done in christian thought)

Rule -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 6:45:44 PM)
I am with kdsub. Science is not a faith? Scientists believe in black holes (which do not exist; there are things that keep in light, but it aint by means of gravity). Scientists believe that the gravity of the sun bends light. (It does not. A light bending phenomenon was detected, and it was either twice of what Einstein predicted or half of what he predicted - his prediction was off by fifty per cent, a factor of two. I can look it up in one of my astronomy textbooks if you want. A phenomenon was observed and Einstein had a ready explanation: gravity did it, and that explanation was conveniently adopted without much ado - but there is no evidence at all that gravity did and does bend the light; its is only a hypothesis that they believe.) Science is not a faith? Then please integrate for me the hypothesis of general relativity with quantum mechanics. The best physicists in the world, including Einstein himself, have broken their teeth on that task for nearly a century - and they have all failed. Why? The only possible explanation for that failure is that one of them is plain wrong - and we know that it isn't quantum mechanics, which is very well understood. As for light, it is indeed pretty well understood - but not entirely. And about the characteristics of the Divine, i.e. the God that NumberSix appears to refer to, it is "outside" our universe - so not subject to any scientific test, as those are limited to what is part of our universe. Spirituality needs to be experienced. Some people never do. They are blind to it. That is not necessarily solely disadvantageous. Blind men have better non-visual senses than people who are not blind. Spiritually blind people perceive more of and have a greater affinity with the physical universe. It took me decades to become somewhat spiritually aware, and in my case it is an intellectual awareness only. I used to be very much atheistic, much more fervent than mc, or Musicmystery. But I do not have a closed mind and I have the unique ability to COMPREHEND. Eventually I ran headlong into evidence. You want evidence, NumberSix? Simply desire something. Make sure that it is a doable desire. If you walk in the Sahara and desire to see an icebear, it will be hard for the Divine to facilitate your wish. You might end up with finding half a page of a magazine in the sand, showing a picture of an icebear.

NumberSix -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 6:51:26 PM)
I can look it up in one of my astronomy textbooks if you want. 'K, I'm gonna need you to do that right quick before we continue this. Ron

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875