RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact.

RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tkman117 -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 6:35:05 AM)
Quick correction: we on earth actually do experience time dilation as a result of the planet's gravitational pull, it's why our clocks run slightly slower than those found in satellites and the clocks need to be adjusted accoridngly. It's not massive time dilation like the kind seen in Interstellar, but it is happening.

tweakabelle -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 7:16:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Thus, in this particular scheme of things, it is not humans who are ultimately dependent on a 'Creator' for their existence but the other way around, it is the 'Creator' who is dependent on humans for its existence, a neat reversal of the standard power relationship between humans and their 'Creators' and an interesting paradox for those who like to collect such things. Ooh, shiver. Did you ever see 'Candyman'? This evil demon said the same thing: without the terrified whisperings of his name and the tales of his horrific deeds, he'd no longer exist. It's an old theme, anyway: lots of people believing very strongly in something actually creates that something. Well, it works in supernatural stories, anyway. Fun! In anthropology such ideas are called 'myths' - the truth value of an idea derives not from any intrinsic merit the idea may have but from how numerous the believers are, and the strength with which they hold the idea. One common application is that it's a good way of accounting for the fervour with which differing religions across cultures are held without taking any view on their theological truth values, though its usefulness is far more widespread than just this application. Another obvious application would be the ways in which differing societies express patriotism.

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 8:29:38 AM)
fr first of all, it is ad nauseam. It means to nausea, it does not mean to nauseu. Second, time as an independent constant was when the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was the center of the universe. It was always a artificial construct to assist in describing discrete events. Time is only constant within the single frame of your reference. We note time variance constantly, even in our daily lives, if I clamp a vicegrip to your nuts, I will anassailably prove that fact to the satisfaction of all.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 12:06:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Sir Real One . . . . quote: It should be clear that his postulate is an identical method and procedure used in creating a scientific hypothesis. Not at all! Meynell's pretend "science" lacks any reliable empirical data to begin his process. . . . observation, hypothesis, predictions, falsification, affirmation/rejection. your ad nauseum reliance on pure analytical reason has long since been shown to be insufficient to explain anything beyond lumps on your head. You deny understanding of the world beyond lumps on the head when you claim there is nothing empirical exists for the argument since murder = bad, pleasure = good cannot be accounted for by your methodology. It begs if you understand anything about the subject beyond a quick read for the sake of throwing some shit out here to appease atheists. Do you even understand what I just said? Ad hominem attacks are the death rattle of empty discourse. Did I say anywhere that all events were subject to scientific investigation? I did not. My position is that the existence of god is not suitable for scientific investigation, whose components I enumerated above. Especially that the hypothesis cannot be falsified, so it runs about in a circle biting its own ass. Ergo, rational theology is a philosophical inquiry only and Meynell is an arsehole. Carry on. Can a positron be falsified? Well Vince, I am still waiting for you come up to the plate and tell us exactly what argument criteria would be satisfactory prove to the atheist lackers, that does not run contrary to common methods being used in other disciplines, that there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of believing in God. Especially since even Kant came to that conclusion along with several other philosophers. So ante up.

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 12:08:00 PM)
can a positron be falsified, grammatically is akin to saying: can an apple pretend to be a communist.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 1:23:25 PM)
can you pretend to have a brain larger than an amoebae? Time is a constant. take it to the appropriate forum http://www.collarchat.com/forumid_36/tt.htm

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 1:25:38 PM)
time is never a constant except in your own frame of reference. only the speed of light is constant. The equation for time dilation is: Δt′=Δt1−v2c2−−−−−√ Where, Δt′ = dilated time, Δt= stationary time, v= velocity, c=speed of light. can you have a brain? You should only be allowed to post in a constant imbecility forum.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 1:37:04 PM)
dumbass

mnottertail -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 1:58:34 PM)
you got your dick in your hands as usual. the facts are, no imbecile from wisconsin who is the lord of the posse comitatus is ever taken seriously when he is in constant hallucination of having dominion over so many things, and is provably a cretin.

MisterNatural -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 2:47:15 PM)
Has anyone else seen the difficulty with believing a bunch of Bronze Age fables used to answer what we now can do with science and technology? Worse yet, why should anyone fanatically follow these and other pronouncements made in scriptures, which have mainly been used by the Priest-Class and Aristocracies through the ages to maintain and perpetuate their power over the masses? I won't even start on the evils perpetrated by so-called 'Men of God' on innocents and innocent cultures.

PeonForHer -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 3:09:52 PM)
quote: Time is a constant. No, it isn't, RO.

MariaB -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 3:24:28 PM)
Well who would of thought we would find such philosophical debates here on CM [:D] It was Feuerbach who said, "philosophy must begin with the finite, material world. Thought does not precede existence, existence precedes thought. Hegel suggested religion was 'self alienation', that beliefs in God alienates us from our mortal existence and the world in which we actually live. Feuerbach took this one step further in his book Essence of Christianity... God, he wrote, is to be understood as the essence of the human species, externalized and projected into an alien reality. Wisdom, love, benevolence - these are really attributes of the human species, but we attribute them, in a purified form, to God and we glorify him in our own image. The more we enrich our concept of God in this way, however, the more we impoverish ourselves. What we believe of God, 'the highest divinity', is really true of ourselves.

PeonForHer -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 3:42:09 PM)
Have you ever read Terry Pratchett's 'Lords and Ladies'? It's all in there. In this case it's the Elves who claim that they give mortals 'glamour'. But they don't - they just suck the glamour out of mortals' lives, as Granny Weatherwax tells the Elf Queen. Er, just saying. [;)]

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 4:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Time is a constant. No, it isn't, RO. Probably the best thing to do is fathom the depths of what I said in post 198 so I dont have to start handing people their asses again. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The construct of time is intended to be a constant and thats where it ends, nothing more to it. Time errors between time devices is the result one or 2 things, perceptual errors or mechanical errors within the device. Time itself is a constant.

PeonForHer -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 5:01:54 PM)
quote: Probably the best thing to do is fathom the depths of what I said in post 198 so I dont have to start handing people their asses again. Well, I admire your confidence, anyway. [:D]

vincentML -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 5:15:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Sir Real One . . . . quote: It should be clear that his postulate is an identical method and procedure used in creating a scientific hypothesis. Not at all! Meynell's pretend "science" lacks any reliable empirical data to begin his process. . . . observation, hypothesis, predictions, falsification, affirmation/rejection. your ad nauseum reliance on pure analytical reason has long since been shown to be insufficient to explain anything beyond lumps on your head. You deny understanding of the world beyond lumps on the head when you claim there is nothing empirical exists for the argument since murder = bad, pleasure = good cannot be accounted for by your methodology. It begs if you understand anything about the subject beyond a quick read for the sake of throwing some shit out here to appease atheists. Do you even understand what I just said? Ad hominem attacks are the death rattle of empty discourse. Did I say anywhere that all events were subject to scientific investigation? I did not. My position is that the existence of god is not suitable for scientific investigation, whose components I enumerated above. Especially that the hypothesis cannot be falsified, so it runs about in a circle biting its own ass. Ergo, rational theology is a philosophical inquiry only and Meynell is an arsehole. Carry on. quote: Can a positron be falsified? The position, or thesis, or theory, is expected to give rise to subsidiary predictions which are subject to falsification. One of the predictions of General Relativity was that Mercury's transit of the sun does not follow Kepler's Laws, if I have that right. The prediction was verified when viewed during an eclipse.

vincentML -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 5:41:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The construct of time is intended to be a constant and thats where it ends, nothing more to it. Time errors between time devices is the result one or 2 things, perceptual errors or mechanical errors within the device. Time itself is a constant. Which reminds us of the paradox of the twin astronauts. Both young men. One twin embarked on a galactic round trip traveling at maybe near the speed of light. The other remained home on earth. When the prodigal twin returned he was much younger than the terrestrial twin. So far, so strange, but undoubtedly real. Space-travel with speeds close to that of light may be unfathomably far beyond the reach of current technology. But sending elementary particles on round trips in a particle accelerator at 99.99999 percent of light speed is routine. The result is in precise agreement with the predictions of special relativity - the "inner clock" of such a travelling particle runs much slower than that of a particle of the same species that remains at rest (cf. the page The relativity of space and time in the section Special Relativity of Elementary Einstein).

PeonForHer -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 6:25:01 PM)
quote: In anthropology such ideas are called 'myths' - the truth value of an idea derives not from any intrinsic merit the idea may have but from how numerous the believers are, and the strength with which they hold the idea. One common application is that it's a good way of accounting for the fervour with which differing religions across cultures are held without taking any view on their theological truth values, though its usefulness is far more widespread than just this application. Another obvious application would be the ways in which differing societies express patriotism. And of course, Tweakabelle - sorry, Tinkerbelle - in Peter Pan, could only be kept alive by the fact of millions of people saying 'I believe in fairies'. [:)]

MrRodgers -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 6:49:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: In anthropology such ideas are called 'myths' - the truth value of an idea derives not from any intrinsic merit the idea may have but from how numerous the believers are, and the strength with which they hold the idea. One common application is that it's a good way of accounting for the fervour with which differing religions across cultures are held without taking any view on their theological truth values, though its usefulness is far more widespread than just this application. Another obvious application would be the ways in which differing societies express patriotism. And of course, Tweakabelle - sorry, Tinkerbelle - in Peter Pan, could only be kept alive by the fact of millions of people saying 'I believe in fairies'. [:)] I've heard that.

MariaB -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/29/2015 11:49:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: In anthropology such ideas are called 'myths' - the truth value of an idea derives not from any intrinsic merit the idea may have but from how numerous the believers are, and the strength with which they hold the idea. One common application is that it's a good way of accounting for the fervour with which differing religions across cultures are held without taking any view on their theological truth values, though its usefulness is far more widespread than just this application. Another obvious application would be the ways in which differing societies express patriotism. And of course, Tweakabelle - sorry, Tinkerbelle - in Peter Pan, could only be kept alive by the fact of millions of people saying 'I believe in fairies'. [:)] Its ridiculous but relative.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875