Proof of Solomon's mines found in Israel

Sep 03, 2013
This is the stratigraphy of the Slaves' Hill, resulting from 150 years of copper production peaking in the 10th century BCE. Credit: American Friends of Tel Aviv University (AFTAU)

New findings from an archaeological excavation led this winter by Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef of Tel Aviv University's Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures prove that copper mines in Israel thought to have been built by the ancient Egyptians in the 13th century BCE actually originated three centuries later, during the reign of the legendary King Solomon.

Based on the radiocarbon dating of material unearthed at a new site in Timna Valley in Israel's Aravah Desert, the findings overturn the archaeological consensus of the last several decades. Scholarly work and materials found in the area suggest the mines were operated by the Edomites, a semi-nomadic tribal confederation that according to the Bible warred constantly with Israel.

"The mines are definitely from the period of King Solomon," says Dr. Ben-Yosef. "They may help us understand the local society, which would have been invisible to us otherwise."

Slaves to history

Now a national park, Timna Valley was an ancient copper production district with thousands of mines and dozens of smelting sites. In February 2013, Dr. Ben-Yosef and a team of researchers and students excavated a previously untouched site in the valley, known as the Slaves' Hill. The area is a massive smelting camp containing the remains of hundreds of furnaces and layers of copper slag, the waste created during the smelting process.

In addition to the furnaces, the researchers unearthed an impressive collection of clothing, fabrics, and ropes made using advanced weaving technology; foods, like dates, grapes, and pistachios; ceramics; and various types of metallurgical installations. The world-renowned Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at the University of Oxford in England dated 11 of the items to the 10th century BCE, when according to the Bible King Solomon ruled the Kingdom of Israel.

The shows the mines in Timna Valley were built and operated by a local society, likely the early Edomites, who are known to have occupied the land and formed a kingdom that rivaled Judah. The unearthed materials and the lack of architectural remains at the Slaves' Hill support the idea that the locals were a semi-nomadic people who lived in tents.

The findings from the Slaves' Hill confirm those of a 2009 dig Ben-Yosef helped to conduct at "Site 30," another of the largest ancient smelting camps in Timna Valley. Then a graduate student of Prof. Thomas E. Levy at the University of California, San Diego, he helped demonstrate that the copper mines in the valley dated from the 11th to 9th centuries BCE—the era of Kings David and Solomon—and were probably Edomite in origin. The findings were reported in the journal The American Schools of Oriental Research in 2012, but the publication did little to shake the notion that the mines were Egyptian, based primarily on the discovery of an Egyptian Temple in the center of the valley in 1969.

Power without stone

The Slaves' Hill dig also demonstrates that the society in Timna Valley was surprisingly complex. The smelting technology was relatively advanced and the layout of the camp reflects a high level of social organization. Impressive cooperation would have been required for thousands of people to operate the mines in the middle of the desert.

"In Timna Valley, we unearthed a society with undoubtedly significant development, organization, and power," says Ben-Yosef. "And yet because the people were living in tents, they would have been transparent to us as archaeologists if they had been engaged in an industry other than mining and smelting, which is very visible archaeologically."

Although the society likely possessed a degree of political and military power, archaeologists would probably never have found evidence of its existence if it were not for the mining operation. Ben-Yosef says this calls into question archaeology's traditional assumption that advanced societies usually leave behind architectural ruins. He also says that the findings at the Slaves' Hill undermine criticisms of the Bible's historicity based on a lack of archaeological evidence. It's entirely possible that David and Solomon existed and even that they exerted some control over the in the Timna Valley at times, he says.

Dr. Ben-Yosef is leading another dig at the Slaves' Hill in the winter and is looking for volunteers.

Explore further: Inscription from time of David & Solomon found near Temple Mount in Hebrew University excavation

Related Stories

King David's palace found, says Israeli team

Jul 21, 2013

(AP)—A team of Israeli archaeologists believes it has discovered the ruins of a palace belonging to the biblical King David, but other Israeli experts dispute the claim.

Khirbet Qeiyafa identified as biblical 'Neta'im'

Mar 08, 2010

Has another mystery in the history of Israel been solved? Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Bible Studies at the University of Haifa has identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as "Neta'im", which is mentioned in the book of Chronicles. ...

Most ancient Hebrew biblical inscription deciphered

Jan 07, 2010

Professor Gershon Galil of the department of biblical studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that ...

Recommended for you

Crowd-sourcing Britain's Bronze Age

Apr 17, 2014

A new joint project by the British Museum and the UCL Institute of Archaeology is seeking online contributions from members of the public to enhance a major British Bronze Age archive and artefact collection.

Roman dig 'transforms understanding' of ancient port

Apr 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —Researchers from the universities of Cambridge and Southampton have discovered a new section of the boundary wall of the ancient Roman port of Ostia, proving the city was much larger than previously ...

User comments : 405

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Horus
3.2 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2013
``New findings from an archaeological excavation led this winter by Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef of Tel Aviv University's Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures prove that copper mines in Israel thought to have been built by the ancient Egyptians in the 13th century BCE actually originated three centuries later, during the reign of the legendary King Solomon.

-------------

No. It proves the dating was 3 centuries newer. There is no proof of Solomon's legendary mine. Putting the Bible and the Torah to match up actual Scientific Fact is typical of all religiously funded digs.
El_Nose
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2013
The legendary mine of Solomon is the myth/legend of a diamond mine. However, the fact that Isreal produced weapons of copper or bronze during that time period is just basics of the cultures in the region during the time period and is not disputed.

This is not an attempt to link a fabled mine to reality. This is simply stating that there is evidence that there were mines in the area that date back a little farther than previously thought, and was confirmed by an outside source.

freethinking
1.4 / 5 (33) Sep 03, 2013
More proof the bible is correct....naaaa can't be.

According to Atheists, the bible is wrong and any history contained in it is wrong. How do they know the history in the Bible is wrong? Because according to Atheists and their religion, the Bible is wrong and any proofs that it is correct must be wrong, because the bible must be wrong.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (27) Sep 03, 2013
"during the reign of the legendary King Solomon."

-What a load. There is absolutely no evidence of the kingdoms of solomon and david, and a great deal to convince scientists that other things were going on during that period.
How do they know the history in the Bible is wrong?
Evidence. Either your god made it all disappear and replaced it with contradictory evidence, in which case your god is a LIAR, or your book was written by people who were LIARS.

Either way the merciful, ethical, HONEST god as described in your book doesnt exist.
More proof the bible is correct....naaaa can't be.
Correct. Did they find any artifacts with solomons name on it? No. Other rulers from the period are recorded in all sorts of artifacts. They recorded their dealings with other. But there is absolutely NO mention of solomon or david whatsoever, while there should be tons.

Because they are fabrications. Paul bunyan dug the grand canyon.How do we know this? Because its THERE isnt it?
hemitite
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 03, 2013
I'm not worried about what science will discover, because over time it will continue to give witness to the truth of biblical accounts and of orthodox Christian doctrine.

But the whole "BCE" thing is just ridiculous: it still points to the same event, the birth of Jesus Christ, but just doesn't mention it by name like BC does. What a bunch of silly moral midgets!
hemitite
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 03, 2013
Re my comment above: no I am not a creationist. What the biblical creation story does is actually rather interesting; it shows the Lord building the universe as a temple. And most temples and churches until recently were meant to represent little models of creation.
freethinking
2 / 5 (25) Sep 03, 2013
Otto, ignorance and you go hand in hand.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (19) Sep 03, 2013
If I could give Otto "Zero Stars" I would.

It's a shame the lowest rank you can give somebody is a "one," when they actually deserve nothing.
Humpty
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2013
The god of the jews, the moslems and the christians, has a shit eating fetish.

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them." (Ezekiel 4:12-13)

"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II Kings 18:27)
DarkHorse66
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2013
@Humpty: you made me laugh. They probably would have used something similar for fires and cooking anyway. What is the most common source of fuel in the desert?? Dried dung. Notably dried camel dung. And I don't think that this would have been considered any 'cleaner' than human dung. I couldn't resist googling it & found this (it makes for interesting reading):
http://www.sas.up...ung.html
Towards the bottom of that page (Dung and War section), I learnt that there are health benefits to eating dung...! (to see in full detail, Click on on the link at the end of that section. Makes for fascinating reading).
Btw, did you know that camels did not originate in Arabia? There are fossils in America, as well as a few other places (everything you ever wanted to know about camels (& some you didn't.) at least the author is neutral when talking about mentions of camels in the bible, but that's only one section):
http://nabataea.net/camel.html

Best Regards, DH66
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 04, 2013
LOL...when the artifacts are dug up that will prove without any doubt that Kings David and Solomon were real and ruled over their people in those times that are defined in the Bible, Theghostofotto1923 will probably drop dead of a heart attack from his anguish at being proven wrong about God the Creator and Yeshua His Son, and Blotto's immortal Soul will remain in his body where he will FEEL every agony and the pains of his material form rotting away. In that time, each and every miserable misdeed, spoken and written piece of lies, vitriol and slander professed during his war with God will be remembered over and over again to remind him that God is, indeed, the Creator of man, and that Blotto's sins will not go unpunished.

Blotto will find himself immobilized in his body and will be aware of everything, including the nightmare of the horrible darkness that is blacker than the darkest night.
Justice is served.

At this very moment, the Soul of atheist Christopher Hitchins suffers well
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2013
SOXS For an avowed Christian, you seem to take an awful lot of pleasure (repeatedly) in the misery of others (either imaged or real) Is that how a true Christian is encouraged to behave? I've met many, many Evangelical Christians who like to tell everybody that they meet, that they seek to 'follow in the footsteps of Jesus' and that this is a primary goal. According to your own New Testament, Jesus embodied Love. Not Hate. He even said to 'love your enemy'. (no matter who it is) You are showing no signs of doing that, or of following JC's footsteps. He said to 'pray for them', not 'persecute them'. I would recommend that you re-read & think about the meaning of what he said. Just in case you don't know where to look: http://biblehub.c...5-44.htm Are you truly the Christian that you keep saying you are? Are you for real? Or are you just trolling?
DH66
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
that Kings David and Solomon were real and ruled over their people in those times that are defined in the Bible,
...at being proven wrong about God the Creator and Yeshua His Son

And your logical path from "king X existed" to "god existed" is...?

Just that cats and hats exist doesn't really prove that the "cat in the hat" existed, you know.

Are you truly the Christian that you keep saying you are?

He's the old-testament kind.
DarkHorse66
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2013
[q
Are you truly the Christian that you keep saying you are?

He's the old-testament kind.

I know what you're saying here. But I have the following to consider. The OT, is technically NOT a Christian book. It was meant for Jews and Judaism. The only mention of Jesus is a prediction of a 'Saviour to come'. And 'Christian' means 'follower of (or believer in) Christ. It was only after his birth that a non-Jewish sect arose, that later evolved into what we now know as Christianity. The NT was cobbled together, specifically for these new followers, as a result & the OT was meant to be used as a secondary tool to the NT, NOT the other way round. What's more, there are many contradictions in the general commandements on how to behave or treat others, between the two. So, if someone is calling themselves a Christian, but putting the OT ahead of & at the expense of the NT (as he appears to be doing), are they actually still a true Christian? Or something else?
Cheers, DH66
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2013
are they actually still a true Christian?

Don't ask me. I turned atheist around my 16th birthday or so (legally a bit later - which is something you have to do in germany, because the christian churches are allowed to collect a church tax from your income. Something other churches aren't allowed to do. So much for religious equality....or separation of church and state).

But frankly, I haven't ever met anyone who would classify as a true christian (i.e. a follower of what christ actually, supposedly preached...if you read the bible). There's plenty who pay lip service for the societal benefits, though.
Humpty
1.8 / 5 (13) Sep 04, 2013
Yes Jesus is the founder of the gay (not lesbian) church. He wore ladies clothes, and had 12 boyfriends who all used to go out and party on together in the parks and gardens with wine and lots of kissing.

KIng Solomen and David were also into naked dancing and lots of concubines and hot romances.

So we guys get to share in his love of all men, and you girls - well you just have to miss out don't you.

Fisty_McBeefpunch
2.2 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2013
"Based on the radiocarbon dating of material unearthed at a new site in Timna Valley..."

And now the fundies who will begin to cite this as "evidence" are presented with a problem. One of their pet claims is that radiocarbon dating is unreliable.
PPihkala
2 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2013
I saw somewhere stated that "love your enemy" is translation error and should be "understand your enemy" which would make more sense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (13) Sep 04, 2013
If I could give Otto "Zero Stars" I would.

It's a shame the lowest rank you can give somebody is a "one," when they actually deserve nothing.
Sometimes lurker you do say some reasonable things. I'll give you that. But you make no effort to refute the fact that evidence tells us the bible stories never happened. How come? Is it because you know you can't?

Freethinking on the other hand is willing to accept that these mines are proof of Solomon because that's what the title says... Even though the ARTICLE tells us they were dug by Edomites living in tents.

This is how religionists think. This is why they worship nonexistent gods and beg for nonexistent nirvana.

No flood. No first people. No 2m Jews in goshen. No exodus through Egypt-garrisoned Sinai. No mt Sinai. No genocidal joshuan rampage. No great Solomon/David kingdoms. And no godman Jesus as he was only a clone.

Evidence rules this world and it will destroy all superstition.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2013
Remember everyone, Otto as well as other Atheists, if it is in the Bible it must be wrong. Why? Because the Religion of Atheism demands that answer, no matter how much proof if found.

Radical Atheists such as Otto, are the most closed minded hypocritical people. They will not evaluate or consider anything outside their world view.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2013
I'm not worried about what science will discover, because over time it will continue to give witness to the truth of biblical accounts and of orthodox Christian doctrine
-See? This is how religionists regard evidence. This is why it is so easy for their handlers to get them to believe absolutely anything. Anything.
But the whole "BCE" thing is just ridiculous: it still points to the same event, the birth of Jesus Christ, but just doesn't mention it by name like BC does. What a bunch of silly moral midgets!
Well you're right, the consensus among religious scholars (?) is that your frontman was born in 6 bce.
if it is in the bible it must be wrong
No, I think I said that evidence tells us that the above-mentioned bible stories didn't happen. Do you understand the difference? No you don't.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2013
"They will not evaluate or consider anything outside their world view."

If your world view says that you believe things based on evidence (facts would be another word) - then there is no need to consider anything outside of that view. Otherwise we are at the mercy of the wind. How do you choose between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc.????? The problem that religionists are unwilling to acknowledge - is that selecting a religion is of course arbitrary. Even selecting a sub division within a religion is arbitrary. Look at the Sunnis and the Shia killing each other. Or the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland - blowing each other up. So you close your eyes, pick a religion, and then kill people who did not happen to pick the one you did. And then you attack atheists for being closed minded!!!! I am highly consistent - and just ask for evidence.....
Michael7171
4.2 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2013
We're just self replicating, self programmable, robots. Damage our main circuit board through blunt force trauma, dementia, etc. and the "person" you thought was there just fades away.

We are only what our brain structures, the genes that control them, and the methylation that modifies said genes allows/compels us to be. No gods. No devils. No ghosts.
hemitite
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2013
TGO1923,

1. The above article claims that these archeological discoveries lend credence to the scriptural accounts of David and Salomon.
2. I indicate that this is to be expected because I trust in the authority of the Holy Scriptures.
3. You see this as evidence that "religionists" have a low standard of criticality re evidence.

When you get a new prescription from you doctor, do you buy a bunch of rats and run you own tests to see if the drug does what the label says? Probably not, for the good reason that you have come to trust the FDA and the medical folks in these matters: you trust their authority.

As a believing Catholic Christian I have learned to trust the authority of the Church and the Bible because:
1. My life experience has confirmed for me the truth of the Church's teachings (this is called Personalism, and it is a development of Phenomenology.)
2. Faith in what is true is transformitve, and having been an atheist materialist and Buddhist and etc. I have found home.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2013
3. You see this as evidence that "religionists" have a low standard of criticality re evidence.

Of course we do. Religionists have no regard for the issue of evidence. This is a fight that goes on all the time on this board - with Ryggy claiming that you have to have 'faith'. Faith is the opposite of evidence. Faith is the belief in things for which there is no evidence.

So you picked the Catholic texts for you authority figure hemitite. Why did you not pick the Talmud, or the Bagvad Ghita, or the Sanscrit texts, or the Koran etc. etc. etc. I was told as a child that the Bible represented the inerrant word of God. I believed that for many years - until I looked at the evidence. One of the things I subsequently learned was that we were presented with a very select few sections of the Bible. Reading the whole thing with a critical eye - was a very different experience. I wish we had time to delve in to it - but this format is too brief (cont).
djr
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2013
cont. A quick example Hemitite. The Bible talks about Cherabims and Seraphims. What are they? Where do they come from? Are they immortal?

Now - I assume that you will answer that they are angels - members of the legions of angels. These legions of angels exist for what? I think you will answer for the worship of God. So then the question becomes - if there are legions of angels - that are immortal, and exist for the glory of God. Why did God need to create the earth - knowing that the earth would fall into such a state of suffering, and that the majority of God's created special beings (humans) - would live a very short - miserable life of suffering, and then go to Hell for eternity. Does that not strike you as pretty weird? Just one example.

We could ask questions abut Satan too. Who is Satan? Where did Satan come from? Is it true that a mere Angel - challenged the authority for the almighty creator of all. Pretty stupid don't you think? Are all angels stupid?
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2013
I saw somewhere stated that "love your enemy" is translation error and should be "understand your enemy" which would make more sense.
It is from Rome and it means "Don't kill you enemy." Rome had conquered many civilizations and to have brawls in the capitol would have been unproductive. Rome had to embrace multiculturalism to grow
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2013
Remember everyone, Otto as well as other Atheists, if it is in the Bible it must be wrong. Why?

Nope. But just because it is in the bible doesn't make anything right, either. Something that is in the bible is as much right or wrong as anything that is written in any novel. That something is just written down makes no difference either way.

Now if something is written AND can be tested - that's a different story. The value is in the test (not in the writing). And that goes for every 'fact' written down separately.
I.e.: That something is written down on page 1 and turns out to be borne out by facts doesn't have an influence on anything written on page 2 as to its veracity. Especially when we're talking about a story collection as in the case of the bible.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2013
Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; and 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2013
Babylon, 196 miles square, was enclosed not only by a moat, but also by a double wall 330 feet high, each part 90 feet thick. It was said by unanimous popular opinion to be indestructible, yet two Bible prophets declared its doom. These prophets further claimed that the ruins would be avoided by travelers, that the city would never again be inhabited, and that its stones would not even be moved for use as building material (Isaiah 13:17-22 and Jeremiah 51:26, 43). Their description is, in fact, the well-documented history of the famous citadel.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2013
Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20; Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.
JohnGee
2.7 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2013
The bible is not a history book, damn. Do you believe Solomon had magic powers too?

The Old Testament of the time of Jesus contained the Book of Wisdom which claimed Solomon battled demons and summoned a ghost army, stuff like that. Jesus even made a reference to this in the New Testament. If the bible is the word of god, how can its accepted content change?

Historical evidence for a person in the bible does not prove the bible is historically accurate. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2013
The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948, and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted.
JohnGee
2.9 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
Regarding the above prophecies:

Where is the evidence that the prophecy preceded the prophesied event? Since no one has supernatural powers (prescience) its much more likely the authors are liars and attributed prophecies to those people after the prophesied event took place.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2013
Ezekiel 29:15, the prophet says that Egypt would recover from a desolation (perhaps Babylon's attack about 2600 years ago), but that it would never again rule over other nations. Up until the time of Ezekiel, Egypt had been a world power for centuries, dominating many nations, including Israel. But for most of the past 2500 years, Egypt has been controlled by foreign powers, including the Romans, Ottomans and Europeans. Today, Egypt is again an independent nation, and it has always been an impressive nation. But since the time of Ezekiel, it no longer rules over other nations.

Prophecy written: About 750 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: 333-332 BC

In Amos 1:9-10, the prophet said that God would cause Tyre's protective fortresses to fail, as punishment for the way that Tyre treated Israel. That prophecy was fulfilled in 586-573 BC when Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland of Tyre, and in 333-332 BC when Alexander the Great conquered the island of Tyre.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2013
Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:12
Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: 333-332 BC

In Ezekiel 26:12, the prophet said that Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be thrown into the sea. Ezekiel's prophecy accurately describes how Alexander the Great built a land bridge from the mainland to the island of Tyre, when he attacked in 333-332 BC. Alexander's forces took rubble from Tyre's mainland and tossed it - stones, timber and soil - into the sea, to build the land bridge (which is still there).

Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:14
Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: Since 332 BC

In Ezekiel 26:14, the prophet says the Phoenician city of Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. This was fulfilled when Alexander the Great conquered Tyre in 332 BC. His conquest brought an end to the Phoenician Empire.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2013
Bible prophecy: Nahum 3:17
Prophecy written: About 614 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: 612 BC

In Nahum 3:17, the prophet said Nineveh's army officers would flee rather than fight. Babylonian records claim that Assyrian army members did flee from the battle

JohnGee
2.9 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
This is what we call "baffling with bullshit".

I know off the top of my head Tyre is an extant city. Prophecy busted. I'm assuming there are similar flaws in the other ones. Do you bother to fact check these prophecies before you inundate us with them?

Bible prophecy: Nahum 3:17
Prophecy written: About 614 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: 612 BC
Proof?
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2013
JG Since no one has supernatural powers (prescience) its much more likely the authors are liars and attributed prophecies to those people after the prophesied event took place.

A Closed minded Atheist are you? The Bible can't be true according to Atheists. Why, because according to atheists religious beliefs the Bible just can't be true in any way, and nothing can convince them otherwise. Since Atheists label those that believe the bible as true as close minded, isn't the truth that Atheists are hypocrites because they are closed minded as they admit nothing can convince them the bible is true.
JohnGee
2.9 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
You cannot prove the existence of supernatural powers. Until you do, no one should reward you for believing such nonsense.

Science prophecy: Atomic theory
Prophecy written: ~400 BCE
Prophecy fulfilled: 1904 CE

Albert Einstein proved the existence of atoms in 1904, over two millennia after the ancient Greeks proposed their existence.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2013
GJ, what proof would you need to believe the Bible?
JohnGee
3 / 5 (16) Sep 04, 2013
What proof would you need to not believe the bible?

Science prophecy: Heliocentrism
Prophecy written: 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus of Samos
Prophecy fulfilled: ~1610 BCE, Galileo Galilei

Galileo proved the Sun was the center of the solar system after hundreds of years of denial by the church.
JohnGee
2.9 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
So Tyre was rebuilt. Don't you have anything to say about that?
JohnGee
2.8 / 5 (16) Sep 04, 2013
GJ, what proof would you need to believe the Bible?
I'm being generous answering this so you better appreciate it.

There is pretty much no evidence I can imagine that would cause me to believe the bible. It is a self-contradicting mess. Any wisdom contained within it is available in other works and through the exercise of human reason. There is no evidence for miracles, supernatural powers, etc.

Despite that, I am however agnostic towards the idea of a creator, just not YOUR idea of a creator. If I were to be shown something on the level of the end of the book Contact, I could support a deist-type prime-mover. At the end, the main character discovers that in base-11 after a tremendous number digits, pi goes binary. When arranged in a grid, the binary numbers form a picture of a circle.

Something like that would get me to believe. NOT stone-age fairy tales.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2013
Freewhatever references Ezekiel 26, as a part of the proof of the truth of the Bible. So here is Ezekiel 26.

http://www.bibleg...sion=NIV

Now notice it clearly states the Nebuchadnezzer will sack the city of Tyre - which never happened - in fact he lay siege to the city for 13 years, and then packed up and went home. The most interesting bit is where it says that "You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken" (VS: 14 - referring to the city of Tyre). But of course - today Tyre is a thriving city - on the site of the biblical city of Tyre. Now I don't want to get into a complex debate about biblical details - but the point is that it is pretty easy to see how there can be a great deal of doubt about these issues - and claiming that this or that is proof of anything - is very dodgy....
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 04, 2013
SOXS For an avowed Christian, you seem to take an awful lot of pleasure (repeatedly) in the misery of others (either imaged or real) Is that how a true Christian is encouraged to behave? I've met many, many Evangelical Christians who like to tell everybody that they meet, that they seek to 'follow in the footsteps of Jesus' and that this is a primary goal. According to your own New Testament, Jesus embodied Love. Not Hate. He even said to 'love your enemy'. (no matter who it is) You are showing no signs of doing that, or of following JC's footsteps. He said to 'pray for them', not 'persecute them'. I would recommend that you re-read & think about the meaning of what he said. Just in case you don't know where to look: http://biblehub.c...5-44.htm Are you truly the Christian that you keep saying you are? Are you for real? Or are you just trolling?
DH66


I see you were rated a "1" by Blotto. Atheists are not miserable by what I say, they will just ignore it all.
contd
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 04, 2013
@DH66
Persecution of atheists, anti-religionists and radical Muslim murderers is not in my repertoire.
Theghostofotto1923 (and his legion of sockpuppets) has free rein in this website in regard to fulfilling his own satisfaction in his persecution of those of faith who comment on religion in threads where religion is the topic, or having something to do with the Bible.
Kings Solomon and David are written about in the O.T. and their exploits are a matter of record within the religious communities. Whereas, Blotto continuously spews hatred of, and creates somewhat of a turmoil over such topics because of his obvious certainty that those who are talked about in the Bible...never existed. Never existed...that is Blotto's mantra.

With such beliefs that borders on a religion of hate, Blotto always gives the impression of a deeply intolerant and biased person, who prefers to espouse such hatred due to ignorance and, perhaps, the fear that the events and people in the Bible may all be true.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2013
1. The above article claims that these archeological discoveries lend credence to the scriptural accounts of David and Salomon
What, you mean this?

"Scholarly work and materials found in the area suggest the mines were operated by the Edomites, a semi-nomadic tribal confederation that according to the Bible warred constantly with Israel."

-and youre saying that because it says 'according to the bible' then it is true? The bible also says that 2M jews lived in goshen which we know isnt true.

If that were the only thing it got wrong then perhaps we might consider it a valid historical source. But regarding israels early history, archeology tells us that it got EVERYTHING wrong. And it appears this was on purpose. So we can discount statements like 'according to the bible' without independent corroboration.
I trust in the authority of the Holy Scriptures
Well there you go. The essence of faith - belief DESPITE evidence. Wallow in it.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 04, 2013
The bible is not a history book, damn. Do you believe Solomon had magic powers too?

The Old Testament of the time of Jesus contained the Book of Wisdom which claimed Solomon battled demons and summoned a ghost army, stuff like that. Jesus even made a reference to this in the New Testament. If the bible is the word of god, how can its accepted content change?

Historical evidence for a person in the bible does not prove the bible is historically accurate. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
-JohnGee

The Bible is a history of the Jews and their interrelatonships with those who wanted to conquer them, and who often did. It is important to note that the scribes who wrote the Books had sometimes misinterpreted God's Words, and wrote their own based on their own opinions or from hearsay. It is for this reason that the Bible is always and constantly reinterpreted until a consensus is formed and accepted. However, when artifacts are found, then the Bible is again reviewed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2013
Hey ft rather than your cut/paste barrage why dont you just post a link to the church website you got them from? Thanks.

Here, chew on this:

"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 04, 2013
It is not so surprising that it is the Edomites who operated King Solomon's mines, It is proof that the Edomites were slaves of the Hebrews for at least one time, and who lived in tents. Living in tents makes sense since the tent could be rolled up and carried to another location easily to wherever mining was in progress.
It also makes sense that a King would have dominion over natural resources such as copper. Such mining would add to his riches and provide for his subjects and slaves as well as commercial ventures and trade.
As to the missing cities and palaces, one must not forget that building materials would most likely be taken down and reused again elsewhere when the population needed to move because the area had become too polluted or water was suddenly scarce. American Indians practiced this kind of packing everything and moving in order to "sweeten" where they had dwelt.

If a small or large city is not found, most likely the above was the cause.

freethinking
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2013
djr :In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of foreign powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town.

More details for you:
https://www.apolo...cle=1790
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2013
It has been less than 300 years since the search for artifacts and burial sites began in earnest in the Middle East by Archaeologists. If anyone noticed, the depth at which the dig in the picture was completed would usually not be deep enough if the search had been at a location where human burials and/or building foundations were suspected. Such foundations would have been covered over by the surrounding soil over a period of millennia, especially if completely abandoned and all reusable materials carried away to rebuild elsewhere.

Kingdoms and dynasties are not forever. Even a storehouse of great wealth, ie, diamonds, precious stones, etc. would have been broken into and the artifacts carried away by thieves.
To expect that the same conditions and events that were prevalent thousands of years ago still remain and are intact is a fool's errand. Everything changes and God obviously did not see fit to preserve all those antiquities for us to search for and find.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2013
JG: There is pretty much no evidence I can imagine that would cause me to believe the bible.

I think that defines pretty much what I have been saying. You are closed minded, a slave to your dogma. I'm open to questioning what I believe, indeed the Bible states we aught to question what we believe.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2013
Otto, how about being truthful like JG. There is no evidence that the Bible is correct that you will ever accept as you are a closed minded dogmatic enslaved by your belief Atheist.
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (16) Sep 04, 2013
@freethinking

These people are not being obtuse, stubborn or in denial. This is who they are, and we have to accept that they LIKE being that way. They cannot change. It is doubtful that they would change even to save their Soul, because they believe they have no Soul.

So let them cling to their material world and enjoy it as long as they can in their short existence. They can believe anyway they like. It certainly isn't going to hurt US who have faith. The zebra cannot change its stripes. In the end, they will know, and that is all that really matters.
I am not interested in twisting myself into a knot just to attempt the salvation of Souls who I most likely will never meet and don't really care about. I will care about those who deserve my concern, otherwise, remember what Yeshua said regarding "throwing pearls before swine". He meant that preaching the Word of God to those who don't want it or care, is a waste of time.
The Words are best suited to those who are willing to change.
JohnGee
3.1 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2013
I think that defines pretty much what I have been saying. You are closed minded, a slave to your dogma. I'm open to questioning what I believe, indeed the Bible states we aught to question what we believe.
Your mind isn't even open to the possibility that you were wrong (and by extension biblical prophecy) about Tyre.

The main difference between us, that I can tell, is that you have your faith and attempt to justify it. Whereas I do not care. The idea of creators does not concern me. I don't care if I was created by supernatural means or not. It just doesn't concern me.

Basically it comes down to arrogance. I am not arrogant enough to think I have reality figured out. That is the height of hubris, a flaw all religious persons share. Faith is the unholy marriage of arrogance and ignorance. It leads to nasty things like manufacturing the idea of hell and terrorizing children with it.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2013
But Free - the Bible clearly states that Tyre will never be rebuilt. Now - I don't want to get into a complex discussion of details in the Bible. The point is - I showed you a clear example of a phrophecy that did not come to pass. So - I gave you clear evidence of an error in the Bible - that you are not willing to acknowledge. Now we could discuss this issue into the floor. Is it not more reasonable to understand that you have your framework for seeing the world - and I have mine. You are not willing to change yours - and I am not interested in changing mine. Call that closed minded if you want. I base my understanding of the world on evidence - you look to an ancient religious text. Now - I have given you a reasoned response - and Sox is correct - I am not interested in changing - or basing my world view on your ancient religious text. Would you now give a considered response to my next post?
djr
3.7 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2013
Free - I am interested in the forward progress of the human race. Let me give u an example. 100 years ago - life expectancy was around 40. Today it is over 80. That is thanks to science and technology. In the future - there is no doubt we will cure all disease, attain immortality, and populate the universe with our intelligence. I see ignorance as the major factor that is holding us back from accelerating into this exciting future. So - as I look at our world - I see religious groups fighting with each other. Sunni, shia, Moslem, Christian, Hindu, Protestant, Catholic etc. - all hating, hurting, killing each other. Do you understand why I would be interested in living in a world in which these superstious belief systems are relegated to the dustbin of history - and I am allowed to live in that world that I yearn for (you know - no religious groups trashing the earth with their wars)?
JohnGee
2.7 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2013
Djr, it's funny you bring up medicine. We are on the verge of being able to regenerate limbs. Doctors have even had luck getting people to regenerate the tips of fingers all ready. This is something that not even god has accomplished. There is no documented miracle of someone ever regenerating a limb.

Why would god have never performed this miracle? Does he hate amputees? Does he not want to make his presence obvious? It can't be the latter, because much more extravagant miracles are recorded in the bible.

Could it be that god does not perform miracles?

Could it be that it can't?

Could it be that it doesn't exist?

Show me someone that prays to god, a saint, whatever, documents the process, regenerates a limb without medical intervention, and is determined to not have an inborn genetic ability to do so, and I'll concede it was probably Yahweh and not aliens screwing with us. Probably, not definitely.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2013
Funny thing John - here in the States we have a faith healer - name of Benny Hihn. It has been noted that he can heal hidden afflictions - such as arthritis, and cancer, but he has never been seen to fix a visible affliction - such as a missing limb. Now surely God is not limited to just secret afflictions!!! So Hihn has props on his stage like old crutches, and wheel chairs etc. A newspaper article noted that all the wheel chairs were the old manual kind - very strange - seeing that many people these days use electric wheel chairs. The next week several electric chairs appeared on his stage. God works in mysterious ways....
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2013
Otto, how about being truthful like JG. There is no evidence that the Bible is correct that you will ever accept as you are a closed minded dogmatic enslaved by your belief Atheist.
Science has corroborated much in the bible. There was a king Herod, a Babylon, a Hittite empire, a Sinai peninsula.

Science also tells us that there was never a great Solomonic/davidic kingdom in the midst of all this. This is a typical novelist ploy. We know there is a NYC and are also quite certain that spiderman does not live there.

Re; tyre, prophesy - it is very easy to prophesy when forging accounts after the fact. Religious writers are notorious for this. For fabricating, forging, plagiarizing, lying.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
There is a very good site out there with a nice clear compendium of biblical archeology but I can't find it. Google sits page after page of religious sites proclaiming 'archeology confirms the bible!' These sites invariably repeat the same lies and thoroughly-disproven crap.

This is being done deliberately to obscure the truth. Certainly there are important issues at stake like the survival of the catholic church and israels sovereign right to paragons property.

But it shows the extent to which your handlers will go to obstruct the dissemination of knowledge, as they always have done. And it shows how gullible you sheep all are for swallowing it without question.

It demonstrates just how foul the whole thing is, and how dangerous it is to the future.

Look at the idiot obamasocks above. 'Well it's obvious from the pictures they just didn't dig deep enough'. Your religion is full of people like this who think archeology can be done by looking at pictures and reading Ezekiel.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
Man I fucking hate spellcheck. Better to leave words misspelled than to substitute gibberish. Soon enough it will be smart enough to know what we are trying to say.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2013
According to the Bible, Benny Hinn needs to prove that he can heal. Does he, no.
Anyone who says that they can perform healings, just like Jesus, need to have them verified by an outside source.

I'll agree with most here that too many Christians either don't know what is written in the Bible or choose to ignore what is in it. They make God into the image they want God to be, which according to the bible makes their faith idolatry. Just like Otto, they take things out of context.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
"too many Christians either don't know what is written in the Bible or choose to ignore what is in it."

The point you keep dancing around is that many of us don't care what is written in the Bible. Same for the Koran, the Talmud, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu scriptures, what ever book the Moonies use, etc. etc. etc. You religionists are all having your wars about which book is the true book. Which God is the real god. We are just tired of you all fighting, and killing each other, and hating on each other. Won't you please stop - and let the human race move forward. We will move forward anyway - it is in our DNA - but you idiots are slowing us down to a snails pace with your stupid arguments. Look at Syria right now. I don't even know what an Allawite is - but they are doing both killing and dying - all in the name of some theological technicality - you all make me sick....

Free - thanks for spamming the site - but not answering a straight question....
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 05, 2013
djr, if you don't care, then don't comment. Why did you read up on Tyre?
The truth is that atheists care about what is written in the Bible, they just don't like what is written in it.
JohnGee
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
The truth is that atheists care about what is written in the Bible, they just don't like what is written in it.
We care about what is in it to the extent that you try to get big government to police your stone-age 'morality'.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

I'm not going to sit by and let a bunch of nut jobs ruin 40,000 generations of progress. If you want to be in an echo chamber, stay in church.

And you still haven't admitted the Tyre prophecy was wrong.
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2013
Free - thanks for spamming the site - but not answering a straight question....
I find it more jarring to such people to tell them what they believe rather than ask. I think they have to jump through so many mental hoops and fallacies to support their worldview, many times they aren't capable of telling someone what they believe. We literally know what they believe better than they do. So tell him.

I have no problem telling him he is a child abuser for using religion to justify hitting his children. I have no problem telling him his homophobia likely stems from a deep-seated latent and tortured homosexuality. I have no problem telling him he is a psychopath because he terrorizes children with the obviously false notion of hell.
djr
3.9 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2013
djr, if you don't care, then don't comment. Why did you read up on Tyre?

I don't care about what is written in any one of your holy texts. I do care about the religionists who are holding us back in the stone ages - and may deny me the opportunity to see the human race transcend it's current state of ignorance. That is why I comment - as I have expressed multiple times. I will continue to be happy to throw my shoulder behind the push for intelligence and science.

I googled Ezekiel prophecies in order to make a point. I have read the Bible cover to cover multiple times - as I used to be a religionist. I feel that fact gives me a special insight into how crazy, and destructive religion is. Many others feel the same way.

Here - have some fun - sit down with a Moslem - and argue about whose book has the best prophecies. Here are some of their prophecies that they claim have come true.

http://www.islamr...les/347/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
I have uncovered objective evidence which any godder would accept outright, that Benny hinn is indeed a massive culvert for gods divine power here on earth. Shekinah in a very expensive suit.
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Just look at how he tosses the people around. He does this because he loves them you know? The music kinda ruins it though doncha think Lrrrkrrr?

See the difference is atheists would knock that guy on his ass if he tried that sort of thing with them. Atheists have self-respect,
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2013
Benny hinn needs to prove
Benny hinn doesnt need to prove anything because faith doesn't require proof of any sort whatsoever. Just look at that suit he's wearing. His followers are all the proof you need.

It took an atheist to expose Peter popoff.
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Because atheists require proof whereas godders do not.
scottfos
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
More proof the bible is correct....naaaa can't be.

According to Atheists, the bible is wrong and any history contained in it is wrong. How do they know the history in the Bible is wrong? Because according to Atheists and their religion, the Bible is wrong and any proofs that it is correct must be wrong, because the bible must be wrong.


your strawman about what Athiests think and try to do is absolutely incorrect. i suggest you start by reading Asimov's Guide to the Bible. he does a very good job of collating non-biblical written history, the bible as written history, and archeological findings about the same time period. you might be surprised what you learn, even though it's 2 generations old. cheers.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2013
"It took an atheist to expose Peter popoff."

But his is still bilking the gullible. http://peterpopof...htbox/0/

And Free and Ryggy wonder why we are willing to take a little of our time to expose the craziness...
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 05, 2013
Otto, those that believe Popoff, Hinn, et al are just as foolish, closed minded and dogmatic as Atheists.

No evidence can dissuade them from their belief just as no evidence can persuade Atheists from their belief.

Being a freethinker, I say that it is possible though not probable that faith healing exists. However we are taught by the Bible to have an open mind, BUT we need to Prove and Test all things. If what they (faith healers) say is happening is true, it should be provable medically. Atheists such as yourself BELIEVE it is impossible, so no evidence can persuade you. Atheists are religiously dogmatic and closed minded.
JohnGee
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2013
Atheists are religiously dogmatic and closed minded.
Translation: Up is down; left is right.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 05, 2013
Modern science began with religious men seeking to further understand God's creation.

Now, I suspect too many scientists fear investing some aspects of nature fearing that if true, God may be real.
So they hinder and ridicule to shape the world they want it to be, not what is.

An example are mediums who have quite significant data to show they somehow communicate with people who have died.
Modern science must reject such nonsense straight away for if true, how can they explain communication with dead people, people who, to them, have no soul.
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2013
Why has no medium ever claimed James Randi's million dollar prize?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (15) Sep 05, 2013
"When she was six years old, Allison's deceased great-grandfather came to her with a message for her mother: "I am okay, I am still with you. Tell your mom there's no more pain." Allison shared his comforting words with her mother and thus began a lifetime of creating connections between loved ones and those they have lost."
http://www.barnes...taries-1
No 'real' scientist wants to explore this work as his peers would laugh him out of the club. So it's left to amateurs who are more open minded about possibilities.
JohnGee
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
Why has no medium ever claimed James Randi's million dollar prize? Browne accepted the challenge but never showed up.

"Celebrity psychic Sylvia Browne is doing damage control over a prediction made nearly 10 years ago claiming Ohio kidnapping victim Amanda Berry was dead, but her actions may represent a watershed moment in how Americans view psychics."

"Browne told Louwana Miller, the mother of Amanda Berry, on "The Montel Williams Show" in 2004: "She's not alive, honey. Your daughter's not the kind who wouldn't call," The Atlantic Wire reported. Berry was kidnapped 10 years ago and was found alive on Monday."

http://www.huffin...157.html
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
are they actually still a true Christian?

Don't ask me. I turned atheist around my 16th birthday or so (legally a bit later - which is something you have to do in germany, because the christian churches are allowed to collect a church tax from your income. Something other churches aren't allowed to do. So much for religious equality....or separation of church and state).

But frankly, I haven't ever met anyone who would classify as a true christian (i.e. a follower of what christ actually, supposedly preached...if you read the bible). There's plenty who pay lip service for the societal benefits, though.

At least Germany gives Scientology the hard time it deserves. If only more countries did.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2013
At least Germany gives Scientology the hard time it deserves.

It does?
It's true that it is classified as a sect over here. Unfortunately scientology has started the habit of sueing anyone who even talks about it.
These frivolous lawsuits (which scientology invariably loses) are so costly that news-outlets have stopped reporting on scientology alltogether. The cost of the lawsuits far exceeds any money they could make off the story.
(i.e. you don't hear anything from them anymore - but that doesn't mean they have gone away. Quite the contrary)
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2013

But it shows the extent to which your handlers will go to obstruct the dissemination of knowledge, as they always have done. And it shows how gullible you sheep all are for swallowing it without question.


Blotto combines all people of faith into the same category rather than as individuals with individual characteristics. That is the atheist way.

It demonstrates just how foul the whole thing is, and how dangerous it is to the future.


The only thing that is dangerous and foul is the intolerance and hatred from atheists and anti-religionists like Theghostofotto1923 against Christians. There will never be an atheist or anti-religionist confronting a radical Muslim regarding Islam with the idea that Islam is a false religion. That would be too dangerous and he could lose his life.
But Christians are "easy pickings" because their religion prevents them from killing Blotto and removing his head in Muslim fashion. So Blotto picks on Christians to show how brave he is.

obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2013
Look at the idiot obamasocks above. 'Well it's obvious from the pictures they just didn't dig deep enough'. Your religion is full of people like this who think archeology can be done by looking at pictures and reading Ezekiel.
-Theghostofotto1923/BAKOON

Theghostofotto1923 is in the habit of taking words and sentences out of context to support its lies against someone's comment. This is a result of faulty reading comprehension and Blotto and his sucksuckpuppets have been doing this type of dishonesty since he first started commenting on Physorg.

My original comment that Blotto changed was: "It has been less than 300 years since the search for artifacts and burial sites began in earnest in the Middle East by Archaeologists. If anyone noticed, the depth at which the dig in the picture was completed would usually not be deep enough if the search had been at a location where human burials and/or building foundations were suspected...."

Blotto hates it when I prove he is a liar.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2013
For years since Theghostofotto1923 aka otto1932, Theghostofotto1932 and a cageful of otto puppets, as well as legions of others (see my Profile for the names), Blotto has been telling lies about other commenters and creating many sockpuppets with names similar to the original commenter's name. Blotto's aim is to be popular with whoever posts on Physorg. That is, unless he doesn't like what someone says...and that is quite often.

Blotto pretends to be knowledgeable about everything...but only after consulting Wikipedia. Otherwise, without Wikipedia, Blotto knows very little.

ALL commenters should check their original comment if, at any time, Blotto says that someone said this, or that, because 9 times out of 10, Theghostofotto1923 makes up some shit to try and discredit the person and what he really said.
I have caught Theghostofotto1923 and/or his sockpuppets changing my original comments in some way, thinking he could get away with it in the hope of discrediting me.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2013
modern science began with religionists
-Actually it began during the enlightenment when reasonable people sought to free themselves from the religious oppression that had stifled science for 1000 years. They discovered that the ancients had an appreciation of science but that much of what they had learned had been destroyed by the church.

And when they applied the scientific method to analyzing religion they found it to be a hopeless amalgam of superstition, politics, fables, and lies. This allowed these new scientists to shed the nonsense dogma of the church and begin to explore how the world really worked.
the depth would not be deep enough
The obviously phony Eng'r tries to explain her ignorance with yet more ignorance. Why? Pussytard you cannot tell from photos whether scientists are doing things you don't understand, or not.
to try to discredit the person
Even if it was true which it isn't, YOUR lies and bullshit would still be easy to google and confirm yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2013
The way pussytard does engineering, exposed in professional correspondence (obtained via wikileaks:)

"Dear client;

Please send me photos of your site so that I may be able to design foundations for your new Bldg.

Sincerely,
An Obviously very Competent but Delusional and Pretend Engineer

PS Please send photos of all your underground utilities at the site so that we can design the foundations to avoid them. Also send photos of the clouds above your site so we can design your HVAC system for you."

-You really have no idea how stupid you are, do you? I am happy to educate you (but we know it won't stick don't we?)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2013
changing my original comments in some way
??Changing your original comments?? CHANGING your original COMMENTS?? I think we are approaching an understanding of how STUPID you really are.

There is no way to change what is posted on this site. You said what you said, and anyone can copy/paste anything from that long list on my profile page into google to find exacty when and where you said them.

If you don't remember posting them then I suggest you refrain from participating here when you are blind drunk. Just lock up your computer and don't tell yourself where you hid the key. That should work.
freethinking
1 / 5 (19) Sep 06, 2013
JG, I agree with you. Progressives, Atheists, Homosexual activists Up is down; left is right; good is evil; and evil is good; and everything depends on the definition of is IS.

When discussing anyting with a Progressive, Atheists or Homosexual activist, you need to define each and every word.
What is your definition of hate?
What is your definition of racist?
What is your definition of intolerance?
What is your definition of open mindedness?
What is your definition of love?
What is your definition of Is?

Progressives, Atheists, and Homosexual activists DO NOT use the common definition of words. So anyone dealing with them needs to pin down what they mean.

Once you pin them down, you can see how hypocritical they are.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
What is your definition of hate?
What is your definition of racist?
What is your definition of intolerance?

Look in a mirror. That's as close as you can possibly get to a textbook definition of those three.
Gmr
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
Freethinking, I have to wonder about your motivations at so many mentions of pinning people down. Is it a wrestling fetish thing, or more of a domination thing, more sadism than masochist?

I'm going to guess its a control thing, not about feelings or power so much as control. If it wasn't, why else would you seem to want to corral what others do and think to such a degree?
JohnGee
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
JG, I agree with you.
You obviously don't, so you are lying. Are you even a Christian or do you just pretend to be in order to annoy people?

Is it a wrestling fetish
-Gmr
I can remember when I went to high school, the only parents that forced their children into wrestling were also the most openly christian and openly homophobic. Makes you think.

I also see that Ryggesogn2 has not provided any compelling evidence for mediums or an explanation of why they don't take James Randi's million dollar prize. By the way, the prize could be claimed by anyone with any supernatural power, not just mediums.
Neinsense99
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2013
At least Germany gives Scientology the hard time it deserves.

It does?
It's true that it is classified as a sect over here. Unfortunately scientology has started the habit of sueing anyone who even talks about it.
These frivolous lawsuits (which scientology invariably loses) are so costly that news-outlets have stopped reporting on scientology alltogether. The cost of the lawsuits far exceeds any money they could make off the story.
(i.e. you don't hear anything from them anymore - but that doesn't mean they have gone away. Quite the contrary)

http://news.bbc.c...3867.stm

https://en.wikipe..._Germany
JohnGee
3 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
One has to wonder if the founders of more well known religions had similar motivations as L. Ron Hubbard. I would say this is very likely.

'This is why L. Ron Hubbard created a religion after Dianetics — which was called a "modern science of mental health." He was asked for proof and could provide no solid evidence to back his claims. Thus, he started a religion, which under the protections of faith could not be questioned. The Scientologists that are currently dissatisfied with the Church are tending to shift the blame towards the current management, when in fact all activities of management are as per L. Ron Hubbard policy.'

http://www.randi....out.html

Scientology is a case study in the inherent dishonesty of all religion.
JohnGee
3 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
What is your definition of open mindedness?
To quote James Randi: "My mind is open, but not so open that my brain falls out."
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2013
One has to wonder if the founders of more well known religions had similar motivations as L. Ron Hubbard. I would say this is very likely.

'This is why L. Ron Hubbard created a religion after Dianetics — which was called a "modern science of mental health." He was asked for proof and could provide no solid evidence to back his claims. Thus, he started a religion, which under the protections of faith could not be questioned. The Scientologists that are currently dissatisfied with the Church are tending to shift the blame towards the current management, when in fact all activities of management are as per L. Ron Hubbard policy.'

http://www.randi....out.html

Scientology is a case study in the inherent dishonesty of all religion.
-JohnGee

As I recall, L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. His "religion" is a way to extract money and support from followers with no substantial return.
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
That's true, but it was more than just money. He wanted to be above reproach. The wealth and unquestioned authority his religion afforded him allowed him to live in international waters for *various* reasons. That was the true goal it seems.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
As to Theghostofotto's LIES about me, all anyone has to do is to do a FIND in this thread for my name and read my ORIGINAL comment to see that Blotto has taken some words out of context and added its own SPIN to what I really said. Theghostofotto does this kind of thing on a regular basis, so anyone who finds that they are quoted by Blotto, should go back to his/her original comment and cut and paste it into a new post for everyone to know what a LIAR Blotto is.

It is best to quote what Blotto lied about, and then add one's original comment if it is in the same thread. I did that and that makes Theghostofotto1923 very angry because it proves that he is a "spin doctor" of a LIAR, and is obsessed with Pussycat_Eyes (Debra Ann).

Theghostof otto1923 is psychotic which is why he is so obsessed with Pussycat_Eyes. I do believe that Blotto would murder Debra Ann if there was a way for him to find her in person offline. It is proof that Blotto has a mental sickness.
BAKOON
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2013
LOL...there is nothing evil or false about what I said regarding what happens to evil people's Soul when they die. Of course, the Souls of all evil people remain in their body after death, and the Soul can FEEL all the pain and agony of his/her rotting corpse which is in the process of breaking down into its atoms and going back to the dirt. This is a normal process because the evil person condemns himself while alive.

If you don't believe, then ignore what I've said. It doesn't make any difference to me. You can plaster my comment all over the internet for all I care. You condemn your Soul to a dark Hell while you await Judgment.
-Obama_socks, Delusional Religious Extremist Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
Leave it alone obama. No one cares. Stick to the topic please.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
Obama_socks' MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER is showing again. He thinks because a former banned sockpuppet of his was quite chummy with Oliver Manuel (incestuous child rapist), that it doesn't count as him. Sorry idiot, you were knowingly friends with a guy that raped his own children.

You liked him because he was a scientist that would actually talk to you. Generally, scientists can be choosey about not talking to idiots, but when you rape your own children and word gets out, other scientists don't want to talk to you. So he was forced to make do with you.

The hell stuff is your own special brand of dumb. It's like you sat down at the keyboard one day and thought "arrg I hate these people so much. There needs to be SUPER HELL for them." Then you promptly convinced yourself it exists because you are an insane moron.

Of course, the Souls of all evil people remain in their body...

A smart person, even believing that, would not start the sentence with "of course". Massive hubris.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
That's true, but it was more than just money. He wanted to be above reproach. The wealth and unquestioned authority his religion afforded him allowed him to live in international waters for *various* reasons. That was the true goal it seems.
-JohnGee

Correct. And his "religion" gave him control over his followers that created a slavish environment for those who had some way to go before they could be declared "clear". And in order to be in the "clear" class, one would have to give up their autonomy, individuality and wealth to blindly follow this man to whatever conclusion.

As P.T.Barnum said, "there is a sucker born every minute", and that describes the adherents to Dianetics and Scientology very well. It has broken up families and marriages and it, like Progressivism, depends largely on brain-washing and propaganda. It is not a "religion" in the same vein as Christianity. There is no "god" in Scientology.

Oh BTW, I apologize to JohnGee for thinking he is Blotto sockpuppet.
JohnGee
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2013
Yeah, Christianity in general isn't a great fit, but some sects do. Mormonism has some parallels with Scientology, especially regarding its founders. Joseph Smith was pretty obviously a fraud on the same level as Hubbard.

My point is, I think most religions start out as a deliberate attempt of one person misleading another.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
I'm starting to think BAKOON and obama_socks are the same person. Putting one against the other to try and make people feel sorry for him so they might be more perceptible to what he is preaching.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2013
@JohnGee
I will remove your name from the list on my Profile page of the names of Theghostofotto1923's sucksuckpuppets. He uses them to go back into old threads using Google to downvote people like Ryggesogn2 and Noumenon and others so that their average score will be a lot less.

My overall score doesn't matter to me at all, and I will continue to have my say in this website. I will also be as silly as I want to be according to the topic, or as serious as I want to be. This website caters to trolls and nutjobs like Blotto, otherwise Blotto would have been banned years ago, along with his sucksuckpuppets.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
We will all be 6 feet under by or before 2113. But if you really don't like my suggestion for a new kind of spaceship, I will not draw up the design and work out the plans for it to be built in the future before the Sun explodes.
-Obama_socks, All seeing idiot-prophet, Noah-in-Space

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Ralp
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2013
I'm starting to think BAKOON and obama_socks are the same person. Putting one against the other to try and make people feel sorry for him so they might be more perceptible to what he is preaching.

I've wondered this too, rug. Maybe he is Otto as well?
obama_socks
1.1 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2013
Yeah, Christianity in general isn't a great fit, but some sects do. Mormonism has some parallels with Scientology, especially regarding its founders. Joseph Smith was pretty obviously a fraud on the same level as Hubbard.

My point is, I think most religions start out as a deliberate attempt of one person misleading another.
-JohnGee

John Smith was only a kid of 15 when he claimed to be visited many times by the angel, Moroni.
I must confess to having found it hilariously comical that the name was Moroni and I did laugh because it seemed so silly.
But the thing that really got me is the claim that American Indians come from one of the "lost tribes of Israel". That is so absurd.
The Mormons are a powerful group. Many of their young men go into Federal service such as CIA and they are extremely well disciplined people.

But I do admire them, just as I admire the Old Amish. The Amish are true environmentalists who don't waste anything.
rug
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2013
I've wondered this too, rug. Maybe he is Otto as well?

Could be, I have no idea.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
I'm starting to think BAKOON and obama_socks are the same person. Putting one against the other to try and make people feel sorry for him so they might be more perceptible to what he is preaching.

I've wondered this too, rug. Maybe he is Otto as well?
-Ralp

Nope...I represent myself and only myself. As I recall, Ralp is one of those who called me an idiot due to my espousing my religious beliefs in http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
So I immediately decided that Ralp is another sockpuppet of Theghostofotto1923...who has legions of them in his sockpuppet cage. As well as many demons.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
Getting back to King Solomon and King David...as I've said, nothing lasts forever, or rather, nothing material lasts in one form. It changes. The picture in the article is a dig that consists of slag and other materials, but no foundations for a city or even a house. The Hebrew Kings existed and had made slaves of the Edomites. In those days, that was the norm to own slaves. If a person did not own slaves, that person was poor and might have preferred to become a slave in order to eat and have shelter. That would have been preferable than living in the streets and starving.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2013
Hey ft just so you know, the def of intolerant bigot can be found in John 2:18-21. Anyone who accepts the idea that people who don't believe in Jesus are evil, is an intolerant bigot.
I represent myself and only myself
Now pussytard you have already admitted to posting under other nicks. And we know that you have posted under the other nicks as listed on my profile page, including the fake black psychiatrist racistblackguy who likes recommending to people on the Internet that they institutionalize themselves. Why would a black shrink call himself racist pussytard?

And why does a NASA engineer think that cells have neurons or that archeology can be done by looking at pictures of dig sites?

The only answers you have to these questions is more outrageous bullshit, and because you sit all alone and secure in your trailer in the middle of nowhere, you think you can get away with it.

This is also a measure of your shocking stupidity.

And no I'm not ralp. You disgust most everyone.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2013
You look at a PHOTO of a dig site and decide that ARCHEOLOGISTS don't know what they're doing. Do you have any IDEA how fucking STUPID this is?? You look at a mars photo and think you see glass-headed martians only you don't understand scale or angle and don't realize that they would have to be 900' tall and DEAD.

You think that leukemia can be cured by bloodletting and expect the people here to believe that this opinion came from an RN. You FUCKING moron.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (17) Sep 06, 2013
GhostofOtto, you almost have to be a paraplegic subsisting on government cheese hand delivered to your door, to have the time to incessantly follow obama_socks around to "prove" that he/she is an idiot. There is a point in this when you cross the line of sanity, and become the idiot yourself. Let it go. We can read to.

I guess the more 'sane' alternative is that you are putting on an elaborate sock puppet show, and in fact control MOST of the screen names that post here. Is that it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2013
Cheese?

I see your nose is still out of joint. Was it the belch comment or the post where I showed you where hawking considered all present-day philos zombies (walking dead)?

No matter. We can't let nonsense stand can we? This would not be proper. Kids might come here and think it is ok to pretend to be nurses and RNs and psychiatrists and NASA engineers.

For those of us here who ARE pros this is unconscionable. The question is why do you condone it? Is it because this
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2013
So sorry I was cut off. As I was saying, are you condoning this behavior because this person is one of the few who share your extremist socioeconomic views? And just what does this suggest to you when a person with a low moral and emotional and intellectual demeanor happens to share these views? Ruminate on that for a spell.

Comments are meant to be commented on. Like Obama I too cannot let outrage stand unaddressed, no matter what you or Ron Paul have to say about it.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
Scientology is a case study in the inherent dishonesty of all religion.

Add AGW to that list.
JohnGee
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2013
You believe obvious conmen commune with the dead.

Why have no mediums claimed James Randi's million dollar prize?
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2013
I represent myself and only myself
Now pussytard you have already admitted to posting under other nicks. And we know that you have posted under the other nicks as listed on my profile page, including the fake black psychiatrist racistblackguy who likes recommending to people on the Internet that they institutionalize themselves. Why would a black shrink call himself racist pussytard?


Nope, I only use THIS name. I'm not Black and I'm not a psychiatrist. I have no idea who those other names are on your list...except for Pussycat_Eyes and we are now friends. Racist Black guy? Most likely he is YOU for the purpose of getting sympathy from other commenters. Not only does Theghostofotto1923 have DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, thus the necessity for a huge amount of sucksuckpuppets. Isn't that right, Blotto?

Your sucksuckpuppets are home to your demons so that you can converse with yourself. You did the same with your FrankHerbert, and you do it now with BAKOON and others.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2013
Obama_socks was openly friendly with Oliver Manuel and admitted to knowing the man molested his own children. Obama_socks went as far as to drive FrankHerbert off this site for criticizing his friendship with Manuel.

FrankHerbert isn't on this physorg anymore, but he still laughs at the idiots here.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013


And why does a NASA engineer think that cells have neurons


I already told you that God created the first cell complete with neurons.

or that archeology can be done by looking at pictures of dig sites?


LIAR. I never said that. You are again taking out of context the very same paragraph from my original comment and twisting it as you are in the habit of doing to somehow garner some kind of sympathy for yourself. You are sick. Get psychiatric help.

The only answers you have to these questions is more outrageous bullshit, and because you sit all alone and secure in your trailer in the middle of nowhere, you think you can get away with it.


Trailer? In the middle of nowhere? ROFLOL

And no I'm not ralp. You disgust most everyone.
-GhostofBlotto

But of course you are. Just like you are FrankHerbert, BAKOON, Empire_man_otto, otto1932, Theghostofotto1932, otthole, TheghostofKwasniczJ, TheghostofAlizee, TheghostofZephir, OttoTheMasterbator, etc etc etc
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
You believe obvious conmen commune with the dead.

Why have no mediums claimed James Randi's million dollar prize?


Why should they?
Either way they loose. If it is a con or if Randi refuses to accept the evidence, they loose the money.
If some is really communicating with the souls of people who have died, it would be only fair to them to get their permission, after all, it takes two to have a conversation, why would they care what Randi believes. When he dies he will find out for himself. And for those living who are in communication with 'the other side', they would have the money and likely too much fame and infamy. Knowing the atheist scientist community, they wouldn't accept the verdict and continue to harass.
Either way, it's a lose-lose proposition for the medium.
What independent research has Randi performed to investigate? Wait, how could he? Randi is not a scientist.
But research is underway at the U. AZ:
http://lach.web.a...ograms_0
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2013
So sorry I was cut off. As I was saying, are you condoning this behavior because this person is one of the few who share your extremist socioeconomic views?


I don't have "extremist socioeconomic views". You just made that up.

The point is, obama_socks/ pirouette/ ritchieguy/ russkiye/ pussycat_eyes/ racistblackguy is recursively and redundantly anonymous, as are your several screen names, so why degenerate each thread into a Jerry Springer episode?

To be honest though, you have provided some good comedy,... never mind, carry on,....
JohnGee
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2013
I can't believe I am arguing with someone about mediums on a science website. This place is a travesty.
JohnGee
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2013
I can't believe I am arguing with someone about mediums on a science website. This place is a travesty.

What independent research has Randi performed to investigate? Wait, how could he? Randi is not a scientist.
Randi is a world renowned magician known to have broken a few of Houdini's records. He is a master of trickery, the most important skill of a medium.

Orson Welles on Cold Reading: http://www.youtub...snfysrp8

Welles speaks of known frauds that "retire wealthy". Of course I highly doubt whether ryggesogn2 cares if they are frauds are not. A service is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it, remember, no matter how fraudulent the service.

His worldview falls apart otherwise.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
I can't believe I am arguing with someone about mediums on a science website. This place is a travesty.


""All matter originates and exists only by virtue of vibration. We must assume that behind this vibration a conscious and intelligent mind exists. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck""
"f all the evidence, as you receive it, leads you to but one conclusion, don't believe it!
From Moliere's The Self-Deceived Husband"
http://www.lach.w..._science
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
"Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and author Neil Gaiman talk about the effect religion has on scientific progress, touching upon the "God of the gaps," religious text, and, of course, rainbows and leprechauns."

http://www.youtub...HxftS8MI

Even the greatest scientists cede their authority on topics they attribute to gods.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
Obama_socks was openly friendly with Oliver Manuel and admitted to knowing the man molested his own children. Obama_socks went as far as to drive FrankHerbert off this site for criticizing his friendship with Manuel.

FrankHerbert isn't on this physorg anymore, but he still laughs at the idiots here.
-BAKOON/Theghostofotto1923

PROVE IT...show everyone here the link where I ever spoke with Manuel or admitted to knowing him.
The sucksuckpuppet FrankHerbert was banned, and it was about time the race-baiter was kicked out of Physorg. BAKOON seems to have been created to take the place of FrankHerbert, isn't that right, Blotto?
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2013
Frank now posts exclusively on smart physorg, where you have to actually prove your expertise in your profession. You can't just pretend to be an engineer over there.

Frank had to stop posting here because Obama_socks started sending him death threats for exposing his friend, Oliver Manuel, as a child molester. Obama_socks said that since Oliver Manuel was such a gifted scientist he should be allowed certain "proclivities". That included raping his own children.

Obama_socks believed Manuel would become a famous physicist on par with Einstein. He thought he would get to be one of Manuel's groupies... All the while not caring one bit about those poor children. And you talk of people's souls. You are the one who will feel your soul rot, sicko.
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2013
"Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and author Neil Gaiman talk about the effect religion has on scientific progress, touching upon the "God of the gaps," religious text, and, of course, rainbows and leprechauns."

http://www.youtub...HxftS8MI

Even the greatest scientists cede their authority on topics they attribute to gods.
-JohnGee

Personally, I don't believe that any human has such abilities as to be able to talk to the dead. The dead who died in God's grace have left their body, while the dead who were evil still remain in their body.
All good magicians are masters of "magic". But magic is not the same thing as miracles. Where magic is the physical manipulation of objects so that something APPEARS to be happening...OTOH, a miracle is not manipulated by a human. Miracles happen free of human intervention and can only be from Spiritual intervention within the material world. When a miracle happens to someone, it is only that person who can explain it. Or try.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2013
"Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and author Neil Gaiman talk about the effect religion has on scientific progress, touching upon the "God of the gaps," religious text, and, of course, rainbows and leprechauns."

http://www.youtub...HxftS8MI

Even the greatest scientists cede their authority on topics they attribute to gods.


It's interesting that most of those scientists are cosmologists.

djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2013
"I can't believe I am arguing with someone about mediums on a science website. This place is a travesty."

The boobies will suck you in any time you let your guard down. I figure that as long as I don't waste too much time - it is worth working together to counter their idiocy. Here is a fun site that deconstructs the cold reading crowd - http://www.re-que...-edward/

The idiocy is mind numbing - I figure as long as I have a few minutes to provide some counter weight - nothing lost - then move on.....
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
I think that scientists, especially cosmologists and theoretical physicists who often work with theory and conjecture rather than completely solid evidence of a material nature, are more prone to acceptance of their own limitations and that of their chosen field.
They do make a great effort to explain the cosmos and its mysteries, but sometimes fail as each new mystery unfolds to which they have no answer in spite of their tremendous understanding of all the Laws of Physics.
It is imperative for each new discovery to fit the established Laws of Physics. Therefore, it must be particularly vexing to be unable to find an answer for what started the Big Bang.

obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2013
With the latest technological achievements, scientists tease out every little piece of new discovery that is found within the known Universe. But a piece of the puzzle is missing, and they search for a logical answer, but it eludes them. They know of Intelligent Design, and yet will often prefer to put off such an answer until they have exhausted every other avenue. To admit that God created the Universe is not to admit defeat. Not at all. It would be an acknowledgement that God made His Universe for our sake, and allowed us the tools for its discovery.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2013
"it must be particularly vexing to be unable to find an answer for what started the Big Bang."

No more vexing than trying to find an answer for 'what started god?'
JohnGee
2.9 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2013
Obama_socks, you are falling into the god of the gaps argument. Watch the video from Neil DeGrasse Tyson I posted above. When scientists start praising God, they stop discovering.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2013
"I can't believe I am arguing with someone about mediums on a science website. This place is a travesty."

The boobies will suck you in any time you let your guard down. I figure that as long as I don't waste too much time - it is worth working together to counter their idiocy. Here is a fun site that deconstructs the cold reading crowd - http://www.re-que...-edward/

The idiocy is mind numbing - I figure as long as I have a few minutes to provide some counter weight - nothing lost - then move on.....
-djr

Nobody in Christianity is FORCING anyone to believe and have faith. Least of all with belief in conversing with the departed. Some people do, but most don't, and in the end, it is strictly up to individual taste.

Oh BTW...that link you provided in the "Obama opposition" thread has been proven to be Photoshopped where the lettering on the signs were digitally erased and new lettering added.
Boy, are you gullible. LOL
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
You were very gullible when you believed Oliver Manuel was a great scientist. You hitched your wagon to him no matter the ugly truth. You even switched accounts and attempted to assume a new online identity over it. However, your idiot syntax comes through in all of your posts.

Checkmate, idiot.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
You were very gullible when you believed Oliver Manuel was a great scientist. You hitched your wagon to him no matter the ugly truth. You even switched accounts and attempted to assume a new online identity over it. However, your idiot syntax comes through in all of your posts.

Checkmate, idiot.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
Obama_socks, you are falling into the god of the gaps argument. Watch the video from Neil DeGrasse Tyson I posted above. When scientists start praising God, they stop discovering.
-JohnGee

I like Neil Tyson...good man, good scientist. But I have to admit that your attempt to dismiss scientists who hold a belief in God, and you say they cannot also be good and competent scientists is ludicrous. Belief and faith is a very personal thing and is a matter of sacred communication between a man and God the Creator. This is normal and natural and has been going on for millennia. You should be more tolerant and be happy for them.

Who knows? At some point in your life, YOU may come to the same conclusion and let God into your heart.
JohnGee
3 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
I didn't say religious scientists are useless. I said they are useless in areas they attribute to God. If you think God created the world in 7 days, you probably aren't going to be a very good archaeologist or cosmologist for example.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
"it must be particularly vexing to be unable to find an answer for what started the Big Bang."

No more vexing than trying to find an answer for 'what started god?'
-djr

IMHO, the Intelligent Entity that is God the Creator had no beginning and will have no end. To say that God had a beginning, you would have to say that all matter/energy in the Universe never existed and it was only by some "magic" that matter/energy came into existence.
Poof, there it is. Just as matter/energy always existed, so did the first Intelligence. God manipulates matter/energy by thought and brings it all together. Thought is the key.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
I didn't say religious scientists are useless. I said they are useless in areas they attribute to God. If you think God created the world in 7 days, you probably aren't going to be a very good archaeologist or cosmologist for example.
-JohnGee

What areas are you talking about? If you mean that they go to church service or have their babies baptized, that is strictly their call.

No, I don't believe that God made everything in only 6 days and rested on the 7th.
The scribes who wrote the Bible were obviously unaware of the numbers in the billions or millions, and could only write the stories in terms of days. But it is possible that their word for millions of years was translated later on into days by someone else.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
@Theghostofotto1923

Your sucksuckpuppet's lies are making me laugh. I need proof of what you claim. Where is the link?
BAKOON
1.3 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
You don't provide proof for anything you claim. If you kept your idiot opinions to yourself you wouldn't have this problem. You knew he was a child molester and that didn't bother you. You're only mad because the truth got out.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
As time goes by, the Archaeologists will find more and more artifacts that will prove the existence of Kings Solomon and David, and might even recover the treasures that most likely was stolen from them. As I've said before, the people would have had to pack up and relocate to another place that wasn't polluted yet. IMO, this packing up and moving from a dirty location to a cleaner one may have been one of the reasons for all the wars in the Middle East. That and lack of potable water.

I also believe that the reason for all the invasions in Europe was because of the necessity to find a fresh and clean area to set up a new town. All the fighting was so that the people who already lived there wouldn't be pushed out by the invaders. The wars weren't merely for plunder and taking the women. After decades in the same spot, the ground would have been filthy.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2013
"IMHO, the Intelligent Entity that is God the Creator had no beginning and will have no end."

So God can have no beginning and no end - but the universe cannot have no beginning and no end! How does that one work? If you can have something that has no beginning and no end - why can't I?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
Idiot opinions? ROFLOL
Keep it to myself? ROFLOL

Blotto has just given himself away. All these lies being told about me are for the mistaken notion that I would slink away from Physorg and never comment again.
LOL...What a doofus!!
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
@djr
Would it help you if I declared that you will live a whole lifetime?
j/k
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
Ah come one guys, the discussion was getting good and then it fell apart. Oh well, guess I'm done getting entertained for the night.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
@djr
The Universe had a beginning...the Big Bang. There could not have been a Big Bang without a catalyst to start it. That catalyst was God the Creator. You need a catalyst to start things. Take a match and hold it to a piece of paper. The paper won't catch fire until you strike the match, causing it to burn. The match burning is the catalyst to start the paper burning.
OK, it's a simplistic way of explaining the process, but a catalyst was needed to start the existing matter/energy explosion. The thought/energy from God was the catalyst and voila! the Universe began.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2013
"You need a catalyst to start things"

And what started God?
meBigGuy
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2013
The great causers caused god. They told me that faking God was the hardest part of creating the Universe.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2013
.. [scientists] search for a logical answer, but it eludes them. They know of Intelligent Design, and yet will often prefer to put off such an answer until they have exhausted every other avenue.


It's not that science is reluctant to accept that answer. It's that, that answer is entirely incompatible with the meaning of science. A person who believes in god and who deliberately suspends that belief in order to pursue knowledge AS IF god did not exist, is a proper scientist.

Metaphysics cannot ever be a source of knowledge, only faith. This is a good thing for people of faith, because it guarantees that a 'disinterested' scientific investigation of nature will never discover the 'seam of reality', existing between the 'mind of god' and empirical reality.

Maybe singularities and the BB are such 'seams', but that's where science may end in any case,... the end of a source of positive knowledge. But, historically, religion had to keep moving goal posts back...
djr
5 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2013
"it guarantees that a 'disinterested' scientific investigation of nature will never discover the 'seam of reality', existing between the 'mind of god' and empirical reality."

Do you recognize the possibility that there is no god?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2013
metaphysics... No source of info
-And so with no evidence for it whatsoever and no hope of ever getting any, we can conclude that it is imaginary. Nothing there. A fantasy. A more intellectual substitute for heaven. A lie. The land of hatchymilachy.

Or we could wait for the next philo to come along who would tell us that it is something else entirely. What crap.
baudrunner
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2013
It's no wonder that the Middle East is such a hot pot of turmoil and conflict. That's the area in the world where the more or less documentable histories of the modern peoples pretty much ends, when you research that history back in time. There, everything comes to a head. In reality, there should be no argument about the historical importance of the bible. It's sometimes all we have to go on. The problems lie with religion. Everybody wants to stake a claim to something, but there will never be general agreement.

There is other, non-religiously interfered with history that far predates the bible. Even biblical accounts of creation in the Book of Genesis are based on something, which you'll discover when you read The Lost Book of Enki by Zecharia Sitchin.

But archeological evidence and modern carbon dating techniques that predate our accepted historical limitations of about 5500 years ago by over a hundred thousand years can allow me to conclude that "religion" is the culprit.
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2013
"Religion" refuses to allow people to believe that there is a history of human civilization that predates the bible. Sumerian legends tell the story of the creation of mankind by beings from another planet who needed "slave workers" to help them mine the abundant gold found on Earth. Archeologists and anthropologists are at a loss to explain the "sudden" emergence of civilization along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

According to research funded by the Anglo-American Corporation in South Africa, archaeologists found evidence of ancient mines. Swaziland and other sites in South Africa contain extensive ancient gold mines with shafts to depths of fifty feet. Stone objects and charcoal remains established dates of 35,000, 46,000, and 60,000 B.C. for these sites. The conclusion was that mining technology was used in South Africa "during much of the period subsequent to 100,000 B.C." Evidence exists for gold mining as long as 200,000 years ago.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2013
"Religion" refuses to allow people to believe that there is a history of human civilization that predates the bible.


The Bible story begins at the Big Bang. What civilizations existed prior to the Big Bang?
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2013
Why anybody wants to argue the existence of Solomon or David is beyond me. There are bigger fish to fry. People are inherently lazy, however, and are more apt to argue about something's existence than to do the research that might support their claims.

Those who established civilization predating Sumeria were the "sons of the gods" (Genesis 6). There were indeed giants upon the earth in those days, and probably the last of them was Goliath, who was slain by David. He was 12 feet tall. Gilgamesh, or Nimrod, who was actually Marduk's chief engineer - Marduk being a son of Enki, son of Anu of Nibiru, leader of the Anunaki, "those who to Earth from Heaven came" - was 16.5 feet tall. Gilgamesh was placed in charge of building the tower of Babel, while Marduk was still in exile in "the land across the waters" (South America). Babel had another purpose under heaven.

Reference: http://www.biblio...htm#menu
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2013
So ryggy how come your book skips from Adam and eve right to the advent of agriculture? Who taught Cain to farm? Who domesticated all of abels animals? And why did god sit back and watch the human race suffer for 300k years before finally deciding to give them a chance to save themselves?

Uh baudrunner babel was built by nimrod?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 07, 2013
"it guarantees that a 'disinterested' scientific investigation of nature will never discover the 'seam of reality', existing between the 'mind of god' and empirical reality."

Do you recognize the possibility that there is no god?


Even worse, the question is meaningless. To me atheists who say categorically that 'god does not exist', are no different than believers since both are making statements positive or negative about metaphysics. Obviously, I'm agnostic in that regard.
IronhorseA
3 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2013
More proof the bible is correct....naaaa can't be.

According to Atheists, the bible is wrong and any history contained in it is wrong. How do they know the history in the Bible is wrong? Because according to Atheists and their religion, the Bible is wrong and any proofs that it is correct must be wrong, because the bible must be wrong.


Because all of the best frauds use a liberal helping of truth to sell the con.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
metaphysics... No source of info
-And so with no evidence for it whatsoever and no hope of ever getting any, we can conclude that it is imaginary. Nothing there. A fantasy. A more intellectual substitute for heaven. A lie. The land of hatchymilachy.


You can Believe that if you're metaphysically minded, yes, but not if you're scientifically minded and would rather Know for sure. I see you still hate to agree with Kant when he says metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge.

Btw, it doesn't really make sense to say there is 'no evidence for metaphysics'. Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions. You could say there is 'no evidence for gods existence', but like Spinoza one could equate all that is, the universe, with god and deprive you.
IronhorseA
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2013
GJ, what proof would you need to believe the Bible?


Radiocarbon dated copies that precede the events described and not a copy edited by a teacher, ie rabbi, after the fact.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2013
How do you choose between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc.?????


The vast majority do not choose. They are indoctrinated (brainwashed) from birth. Choice is not even allowed in some religions, so opting out (apostasy) is punished by death.

Those who indoctrinate their children in religion are guilty of child abuse, in my opinion. Let children reach maturity and make their choices, however insane, then.

The world would be a much saner place if religion were allowed to be a choice. The fact that it is not a choice indicates a huge degree of insecurity on the part of those who are religious, as if their faith could not be transmitted without brainwashing.
baudrunner
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
@The Ghost of Otto 1923: Yes, Nimrod (or Gilgamesh, depending on the narrator's language) was the chief engineer who built the tower of Babel. If you would consult one of your more ancient incarnations, you might infer that on your own. For some reason, you're stuck in 1923.

Honestly, please read http://www.biblio...htm#menu You will not regret it. You will finally be able to trace and encapsulate the entire history of this Earth and the origins of its inhabitants from the time of its formation to the present day. The bible only covers the last few thousand years, and barely relates Egyptian history. You have to consult http://www.sacred...egy/leg/ to find out more on that. Did you know that Abraham circumcised his son so that he could be more like the sons of the gods, who are born without foreskins? They are aliens, after all. You'll find out more about that from reading The Legends of the Gods.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
.. [scientists] search for a logical answer, but it eludes them. They know of Intelligent Design, and yet will often prefer to put off such an answer until they have exhausted every other avenue.


It's not that science is reluctant to accept that answer. It's that, that answer is entirely incompatible with the meaning of science. A person who believes in god and who deliberately suspends that belief in order to pursue knowledge AS IF god did not exist, is a proper scientist.
-Noumenon

You are going on the assumption that ordinarily, scientists who believe in God cannot be good scientists because of their relationship to a Supreme Being. You make the mistake in thinking that God disavows the validity of scientific research and discovery done by His human creations and, therefore, scientists who believe that God is incompatible with science are less likely to continue on with their scientific project due to religious concerns.

That is illogical.

obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
contd
The scientist who is also a Christian must understand and accept that the science research that he does is a process of discovery for which God has appointed man to better himself and his environment, and eventually find out on his own the secrets of the cosmos. We are doing just that.
The religious scientists need not abandon their faith to be good scientists and to do excellent research. It's not a case of either/or, but it is having more faith in oneself and in one's abilities. Their faith in God is already present.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
"Religion" refuses to allow people to believe that there is a history of human civilization that predates the bible.


The Bible story begins at the Big Bang. What civilizations existed prior to the Big Bang?
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
-Ryggesogn2

Genesis1 explains "Let there be light" but goes no further, which causes much confusion due to the fact that the Sun and stars were not created until after that statement.
The light that lit up the world prior to the creation of the Sun was the light emanating from God. There could have been no other Light after the Earth was created and allowed to cool and clouds formed from the gases from the Earth, which rained upon the Earth before the land rose up. That special Light/Energy caused the seeds to grow
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
contd
After the first seeds and plants grew by the Light from God, He then created the Sun and the stars so that His Light would not be required. Genesis1 has the correct sequence of events, but does not elaborate on certain details satisfactorily. Therefore, it is incumbent on the reader to "read between the lines" as I have done regarding the first Light.

Some have also said that Adam was created twice but that is not true. Adam was created at the same time with his first wife, Lilith from the same pile of elements from which God had made the first cell prior to the creation of man. It is for this reason that humans and animals share some DNA due to being created from the same source of elements.
In another thread, Dr. McCarthy claimed that a hybrid came out of a sexual union between a chimp and a pig. I would suggest that the shared DNA was from a much earlier time long before evolution resulted in different subspecies.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 07, 2013
It's not that science is reluctant to accept that answer. It's that, that answer is entirely incompatible with the meaning of science. A person who believes in god and who deliberately suspends that belief in order to pursue knowledge AS IF god did not exist, is a proper scientist.

You are going on the assumption that ordinarily, scientists who believe in God cannot be good scientists [...]The religious scientists need not abandon their faith to be good scientists and to do excellent research.


I think you misread what I wrote. I'm not saying that scientists who believe in God cannot be good scientists, nor that they should abandon their faith. After all Newton wrote more voluminously on theology than science.

To be a scientist is to acquire knowledge of empirical reality, so his mode of operation is to suspend his metaphysical biasses, if only temporarily, and answer purposely delimited questions amendable to observation and verification.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
The Kings of Israel and Judah did not necessarily live in opulence and majestic palaces. They were the leaders of their people and were relied on for protection and food. That is why pestilence was so feared, because it meant starvation, resulting in less control of the citizens.
It is most likely only after an agrarian system and economy became the norm that a certain show (or pretense) of wealth was decided upon to convince the populace that they were in good times or good times were ahead. Taxes were introduced to pay for the army and infrastructure, as well as in providing the appearance of rich royalty.

There were certain "diviners" whose job it was to consult with God to foresee the future. The importance of knowing the future was of great import to King Solomon and his court.
But such consultation was an abuse by a charlatan, and it is evident that wars and atrocities may have been committed due to the King's belief in the charlatan's powers.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (19) Sep 07, 2013
The light that lit up the world prior to the creation of the Sun was the light emanating from God. There could have been no other Light after the Earth was created and allowed to cool and clouds formed from the gases from the Earth, which rained upon the Earth before the land rose up. That special Light/Energy caused the seeds to grow


This is why scientists must act in their profession 'as if' god did not exist (even if they are believers), and attempt to answer questions not based on biblical authority or religious belief.

A scientists should be willing to be compelled by the force of evidence to accept even what he does not want to accept. He must be in this sense, 'disinterested' without bias.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2013
"Do you recognize the possibility that there is no god?"

"Even worse, the question is meaningless." No it is not - it is actually central to someone who is an atheist (notice I did not say agnostic).

You ramble on about this discipline called metaphysics. Then you say - "Metaphysics cannot ever be a source of knowledge, only faith." Which tells me that metaphysics is of no interest to me - and in my opinion is nonsense. Here is an interesting quote "metaphysics—however defined—is an impossible enterprise." From - http://plato.stan...physics/

So why tie yourself up in knots over an 'impossible enterprise' - instead of spending your time with science - that reveals things that we can know? Discussing this seam of knowledge that spans the space between the mind of god - and empirical reality - implies that you know that there is a god - not very metaphysical to me...

djr
4 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2013
Claudius - "The vast majority do not choose."

I broke the chains of my brainwashing - and did choose. But the question was meant to communicate that to an atheist - looking at the array of nonsense religions out there to choose from - there is in fact no way of selecting one over another - they are all nonsensical.
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2013

I think you misread what I wrote. I'm not saying that scientists who believe in God cannot be good scientists, nor that they should abandon their faith. After all Newton wrote more voluminously on theology than science.

To be a scientist is to acquire knowledge of empirical reality, so his mode of operation is to suspend his metaphysical biasses, if only temporarily, and answer purposely delimited questions amendable to observation and verification.
-Noumenon

Apparently I did misread. I suppose you could liken it to reading a book on religion, then putting it down and picking up a book on Physics. There is a clear transition point between one topic and another, and one has to understand the differences. Mainstream science is essentially godless due to its consistency with the pragmatic requiring unequivocal evidence for every claim. But the "search for God" is not unambiguous due to its elusive attributes which clearly are indiscernible to the human perception.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
@Noumenon

@ryg2
The "search for God" is, happily, not restricted to Biblical lore, but may be found in other ways to perceive God's existence. But it is necessary to rule out certain indications of mental or emotional inconsistencies that may contaminate such experiences and prevent actual discovery of the existence of God through a one-on-one communication.

Belief and faith in God the Creator aka the Supreme Being requires absolute certainty. There is no room for vacillation as it is a commitment that benefits the believer on an individual basis. It can be undone, but that has its consequences.

Science is accommodated within the realm of God the Creator. Those who don't wish to believe in God will cling to science exclusively in hopes of finding the answers to all things in that media.
I have faith in God the Creator. In science not so much. Science can be for evil as well as good, as can be attested by all the WMDs that were invented by scientists.
baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
We appear to be living on a world where apparently intelligent and logically reasoning persons can yet hold themselves to a belief in the most absurd of ideas and concepts. ie: That there existed a creature/creator who was just like a man ("made in his image") and who evidently evolved arms and legs as necessary adaptations to an environment that he had yet to create. He apparently shed his own light because in the absence of suns and stars, there was only darkness. @obama_socks: does the buck stop with this god of yours, or is there an even greater creator of that god? What process created your god? Are you prepared to do more research to discover more, or are you satisfied (too lazy) with what you believe?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 07, 2013
"Do you recognize the possibility that there is no god?"


"Even worse, the question is meaningless."
No it is not - it is actually central to someone who is an atheist (notice I did not say agnostic).


But you asked Me, and I'm an agnostic for which it is meaningless.

You ramble on about this discipline called metaphysics. Then you say - "Metaphysics cannot ever be a source of knowledge, only faith." Which tells me that metaphysics is of no interest to me - and in my opinion is nonsense.

In which case we agree and is what I stated in the prior quote, to which you contradicted yourself.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (16) Sep 07, 2013
So why tie yourself up in knots over an 'impossible enterprise' - instead of spending your time with science - that reveals things that we can know?


When I mention metaphysics it is in the pejorative sense wrt knowledge. I've posted many times of 'what we can know', that is, on epistemology, and what we cannot know, in the context of science, in particular in qm,... wrt 'objective realism' vrs logical positivism for example.

Discussing this seam of knowledge that spans the space between the mind of god - and empirical reality - implies that you know that there is a god - not very metaphysical to me...


I don't believe in such a 'seam'. The comment was meant to expose the absurdity of, on the one hand just saying 'god did it', and on the other, that the universe is scientifically comprehendible with self consistent laws. Eventually science would discover this 'seam' of incompatibility between rational discoverable laws and gods will.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
We appear to be living on a world where apparently intelligent and logically reasoning persons can yet hold themselves to a belief in the most absurd of ideas and concepts. ie: That there existed a creature/creator who was just like a man ("made in his image") and who evidently evolved arms and legs as necessary adaptations to an environment that he had yet to create. He apparently shed his own light because in the absence of suns and stars, there was only darkness. @obama_socks: does the buck stop with this god of yours, or is there an even greater creator of that god? What process created your god? Are you prepared to do more research to discover more, or are you satisfied (too lazy) with what you believe?
baudrunner

Those are some very valid concerns. The search for God is ongoing and cannot be discontinued, just as the search for scientific answers to the great questions brought on by our 5 senses can never be discontinued.
contd
Neinsense99
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2013
How do you choose between Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc.?????


The vast majority do not choose. They are indoctrinated (brainwashed) from birth. Choice is not even allowed in some religions, so opting out (apostasy) is punished by death.

Those who indoctrinate their children in religion are guilty of child abuse, in my opinion. Let children reach maturity and make their choices, however insane, then.

The world would be a much saner place if religion were allowed to be a choice. The fact that it is not a choice indicates a huge degree of insecurity on the part of those who are religious, as if their faith could not be transmitted without brainwashing.

After agreeing with Claudius, I am now checking the weather forecast for hell in another tab, just in case it might be freezing over. :)
Noumenon
2 / 5 (16) Sep 07, 2013
So why tie yourself up in knots over an 'impossible enterprise' - instead of spending your time with science - that reveals things that we can know?


I rarely post about god type metaphysics, and in fact focus on erroneous metaphysical assertions within science itself, as for example, here and here, and on and on.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
contd
I am unable to qualify my statements about events in the Bible from personal experience. I was not there when those events happened. God shed His own Light because He made it so, just as He created the Earth first and then the Sun and stars. He is nothing like us as we are mere mortals and God is immortal. I have no information as to God's appearance, but I would think that He is clothed in pure white and is all-powerful, although passive when He deals with mankind.

You must understand that it isn't God that makes us do things - whether evil or good or indifferent. WE do it...ALL of it. Some of us are tempted to do evil and cannot extricate from that temptation, and when that happens, we have condemned ourselves...not only amongst men, but in the eyes of God also.
As to who or what created God, that is not something for which I would lose sleep over. What is, is. And what God does is what God does. There are certain things that we cannot learn or improve on,
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2013
Eventually science would discover this 'seam' of incompatibility between rational discoverable laws and gods will.

Or perhaps science will continue to explore the universe - and the use of the term god will be looked at as a quaint practice of our ignorant forefathers.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2013
But you asked Me, and I'm an agnostic for which it is meaningless.

But you stated "the question is meaningless." You did not say "for me - the question is meaningless." The difference between these two statements is titanic. Have you not noticed the world that we live in? All the different religious cults fighting over whose holy book tells the truth. One of the greatest steps we can take as a species - is to universally acknowledge the possibility that there is NO god - and so it is time to transcend that argument. This is the meme that I want to be a part of pushing in to this insane culture that I find myself in.
djr
2.8 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2013
Sox states: "Some of us are tempted to do evil and cannot extricate from that temptation, and when that happens, we have condemned ourselves..."

I was talking to God last week - and God told me that calling Otto a 'fucking Nazi liar' would definitely qualify as 'very evil.' Poor Sox - he/she ain't gonna like it down in the lake of fire.....
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2013
"In his 1925 lectures, Alfred North Whitehead had said that Christianity is the mother of science because of "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God". Because of the confidence of the early scientists in this rationality, they had an "inexpungable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope." Newton wrote in Principia:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as the Lord over all"
http://www.christ...nce4.htm

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2013
It's interesting that more articles like this keep appearing:

"Science Is Not Religion "
http://www.huffin...=science

Does it have anything to do with the US govt education system?
Or maybe the poor science education teachers receive in school?
Could it be the fault of activist scientists who believe they have solved the world's problems, if only everyone would listen to them? Examples are the continued pronouncements on what is good to eat, or not eat. One month eggs are good for you. Next month they are not. The public debate between Ornish and Atkins are examples. Few point out that all humans are not the same. Human nutrition is difficult to study because it is difficult to confine people to labs and rigorously control diet. But such caveats are seldom stressed by scientists. Another example are AGWites.
JohnGee
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
To me atheists who say categorically that 'god does not exist', are no different than believers since both are making statements positive or negative about metaphysics.
-Noumenon

Equating the two is "wronger than wrong," just as it is wronger than wrong to equate a spherical Earth with a flat Earth. The Earth is neither, but spherical is much closer to being correct.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
Sox states: "Some of us are tempted to do evil and cannot extricate from that temptation, and when that happens, we have condemned ourselves..."

I was talking to God last week - and God told me that calling Otto a 'fucking Nazi liar' would definitely qualify as 'very evil.' Poor Sox - he/she ain't gonna like it down in the lake of fire.....
-djr

Try this one where Blotto named himself after the Nazi Otto Skorzeny,, Hitler's bodyguard.
http://phys.org/p...Otto1932

PERSONAL INFORMATION
First Name:
Otto

Last Name:
Skorzeny

Username:
TheGhostofOtto1932

Member since:
November 28, 2010, 3:30 am

PROFILE Q&A
Birthday:

Location:
Anus of the universe

Affiliation:
Ignore the religionist stalker named dick_wolf who compulsively downrates me under multiple nicks because I proved conclusively to him that god (and philosophy especially Kant and free will) is all nonsense, and is a little petulant as a result. Too bad. dick.

obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2013
That is just a part of Blotto's Profile. It is one of his sucksuckpuppets that never commented. Theghostofotto1923 registered with Physorg on November 27, 2010 and then he created Theghostofotto1932 on November 28, 2010...probably to give "1's" to other commenters.

Perhaps Blotto forgot to expunge the name Otto Skorzeny (Nazi) from his other Profile. Maybe even too proud of it and couldn't bear to erase it from everyone's memory.

Yes djr...you were saying?
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2013
Yes djr...you were saying?

Oh nothing - I could not sleep - so i thought I would waste a couple of seconds.....
ThomasQuinn
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2013
Considering the fact that you can start one hell of a fight amongst the theologians by asking a group of them when exactly King Solomon is supposed to have reigned (no evidence for his reign outside the bible, and serious historians can't call something that's only mentioned in a single source a "fact", dodgy chronology that's been rather arbitrarily settled by Edwin Thiele, etc.), as well as the fact that King Solomon's mines were supposed to hold gold and diamonds and, oh, were largely invented in 1885 (on the basis of sketchy references), it's a rather major leap of faith to call evidence of mines that were *in use* (not built) in the 10th century BCE "proof of King Solomon's mines".

Anyone who supports these outrageous claims has completely disqualified him/herself from scholarly discussion. The only purpose this topic really serves is to expose the religious fanatics who are completely blind to the methods of scholarly inquiry and incapable of making rational deductions.
ThomasQuinn
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2013

Try this one where Blotto named himself after the Nazi Otto Skorzeny,, Hitler's bodyguard.
http://phys.org/p...Otto1932



Yes, Otto is a filthy nazi, and he makes it obvious all the time. But, despite that fact that I'd rather have seen him on the other side, further discrediting the article, the simple fact that he does not embrace the religiously inspired crap that this article is trying to pass off as science does not automatically mean that this article is right. This is in fact one of the worst cases of piss-poor scholarship I've ever seen, as I've superficially explained in my above post.

However, your breathtaking inability to employ critical thinking where the Bible is involved disqualifies you from reasonable debate on the subject just as much as Otto disqualifies himself from the human race for his nazi-love.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2013
Anyone who supports these outrageous claims has completely disqualified him/herself from scholarly discussion.


" Levy believes his study is a model for archaeologists working in areas described in ancient, sacred texts.

He avoided over-reliance on the biblical chronology, but also did not reject it. "

http://news.natio...s_2.html
djr
3 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2013
"To this day, little archaeological evidence has been found to confirm the reigns of either King David or King Solomon."

Also from - http://news.natio...s_2.html

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2013
"To this day, little archaeological evidence has been found to confirm the reigns of either King David or King Solomon."

Also from - http://news.natio...s_2.html


"but also did not reject it."

As atheists must do.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2013
We follow the facts where they lead - a simple process with great clarity - one that religionists are often incapable of comprehending - due to their need to promote an agenda - vs simply looking for what is - it certainly pollutes a site like physorg - unfortunately physorg is unmoderated.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2013
But you asked Me, and I'm an agnostic for which it is meaningless.


But you stated "the question is meaningless." You did not say "for me - the question is meaningless."


You asked ME as follows,... "Do YOU recognize the possibility that there is no god?", to which I answered. You did NOT ask me..."Does everyone recognize the possibility that there is no god?". The difference between these two questions is titanic.
SaulAlinsky
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2013
Time to play argument whack-a-mole with master-sophist Noumenon.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
To me atheists who say categorically that 'god does not exist', are no different than believers since both are making statements positive or negative about metaphysics.
-Noumenon

Equating the two is "wronger than wrong," just as it is wronger than wrong to equate a spherical Earth with a flat Earth. The Earth is neither, but spherical is much closer to being correct.


There is no rational basis for quantifying metaphysical statements, so that analogy fails as well (imo).

The only reason that it can be determined that the earth is closer to being spherical is because it is observable and amenable to scientific investigation. (imo)

Metaphysical pronouncements, taken as defined by those who believe them, are not amenable to scientific investigation, so therefore ANY statement about them at all does not even rise to the level of qualifying as wrong. (imo)

obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
We follow the facts where they lead - a simple process with great clarity - one that religionists are often incapable of comprehending - due to their need to promote an agenda - vs simply looking for what is - it certainly pollutes a site like physorg - unfortunately physorg is unmoderated.
-djr

Would you prefer it that Archaeologists in the Middle East just pack up and leave the digs and abandon their quests, but ONLY if they are searching for evidence of BIBLICAL historical artifacts?

You say, "We follow the facts where they lead...", and then rant about "religionists are often incapable of comprehending..."

Comprehending what? Belief in God doesn't mean that a bunch of Holy Rollers have come into this site to attack all evidence to the contrary regarding the search for biblical artifacts. If the artifacts aren't in one dig, it may be in another. That is why it's called a 'search' and wherever it leads may lead to somewhere else again.

Your hatred of God is evident.

obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
We follow the facts where they lead - a simple process with great clarity - one that religionists are often incapable of comprehending - due to their need to promote an agenda - vs simply looking for what is - it certainly pollutes a site like physorg - unfortunately physorg is unmoderated.
-djr

Would you prefer it that Archaeologists in the Middle East just pack up and leave the digs and abandon their quests, but ONLY if they are searching for evidence of BIBLICAL historical artifacts?

You say, "We follow the facts where they lead...", and then rant about "religionists are often incapable of comprehending..."

Comprehending what? Belief in God doesn't mean that a bunch of Holy Rollers have come into this site to attack all evidence to the contrary regarding the search for biblical artifacts. If the artifacts aren't in one dig, it may be in another. That is why it's called a 'search' and wherever it leads may lead to somewhere else again.

Your hatred of God is evident.

kelman66
4.7 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2013
Its clears that many of the things in the bible actually happened but things were compiled in a manner to perpetuate the writer's beliefs, often including stories from hundreds of years earlier that are attributed to different people.
Religious nutters really DO need to understand the science.
Not bloody likely though.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
Its clears that many of the things in the bible actually happened but things were compiled in a manner to perpetuate the writer's beliefs, often including stories from hundreds of years earlier that are attributed to different people.
Religious nutters really DO need to understand the science.
Not bloody likely though.

Do the anti-religious 'nutters' understand the context and history of the Bible?

I recall a short story about a time machine. The inventor thought if Newton had a simple electronic calculator he would have been so much more productive. So he went back, presented the calculator to Newton who immediately and violently rejected the abominable device as a tool of the devil.

Take care in projecting modern values on the past.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2013
@djr
I, for one, don't subscribe to any organized religion, having noted not only certain disadvantages to going to any particular Christian church, but also the impropriety of declaring one's faith in God and His Son, Yeshua in front of a congregation of people whose fervent belief may come in varying degrees, and who may be in church for their own private reasons which may have nothing to do with faith in God. They are free to join mass worship if they choose, I just don't happen to believe in it.

I prefer to read the Bible and discover truths which are less significant to most, including clergy themselves, but I find to be extremely significant for understanding of what is written in each Book.
I had been enlightened one day as I communicated with my Creator, and all that I have posted regarding my beliefs came to me on that same day.
Obviously, nobody likes the idea of their Soul being trapped in their body after they die, but that is something to seriously contemplate.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2013
"Your hatred of God is evident."

I cannot hate something that does not exist. What I hate is religion. Get out from behind your computer and look at what is happening in OUR world. Look at the Sunnis, and the Shias, and the Christians, and the Hindu, and the Alawites etc. etc. etc. All blowing the shit out of each other over their stupid arguments about whose holy book tells the truth. Here is just one example from a few days ago http://www.nytime...raq.html
djr
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2013
Noumenon - I asked you - "Do YOU recognize the possibility that there is no god?" To which you answered the following - "Even worse, the question is meaningless."

To which I replied - "No it is not - it is actually central to someone who is an atheist (notice I did not say agnostic)".

And you further replied - "But you asked Me, and I'm an agnostic for which it is meaningless."

The bigger point here is that the question of the existence of god is of course a very meaningful question - especially when half the world is torn up with wars over which god is the true one.

From a communication perspective - you are wrong. I asked if you had considered a question. You replied that the question is meaningless. I can show very clearly that it is a meaningful question. I don't even understand why you would say "to me - the question of the existence of god is meaningless." But at least that would have been clear.
leflura
not rated yet Sep 08, 2013
You are freaking awesome. No there is no evidence for either of them and this is another attempt to justify history by some book which has already been debunked numerous times.

I am sick of certain historians trying to twist and distort history to fit their personal religious beliefs. It is time to see history as it is not as you attempt to make it.

If there was a god, his attempts at book writing fail, and perfection, fail, and all of the things he claims to be so great at.

What we need is rational people time dating the evidence and looking not with their own biases but with a desire to uncover history with with an amount of professional pride for their honesty.

History shows that Israelis were likely Canninites, escaped Egyptian slaves, and nomads. Not a special brand of holy people loved by 3 gods they call 1. Polytheists all of them.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2013
"Your hatred of God is evident."

I cannot hate something that does not exist.


You are entitled to your opinion.

What I hate is religion. Get out from behind your computer and look at what is happening in OUR world. Look at the Sunnis, and the Shias, and the Christians, and the Hindu, and the Alawites etc. etc. etc. All blowing the shit out of each other over their stupid arguments about whose holy book tells the truth. Here is just one example from a few days ago http://www.nytime...raq.html
-djr

You forgot to mention Al Qaeda. Shia and Sunni have been fighting for centuries. It is in their blood. Coptic Christians in Egypt were being murdered by Muslim B'Hood and your president did not seem bothered by it, so why should you be?

Your article mentions that it is AlQaeda who is instigating trouble between Shia and Sunni, and that is why America must NOT get involved in that part of the world.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2013
You are entitled to your opinion.

Correct - and as a religionist - you are of course entitled to tell me that I hate something that does not exist. See how arrogant you are.

"Shia and Sunni have been fighting for centuries."

And the gentle loving Christians have never been involved in any kind of violence. See how naive you are - or do you truly not know about the religious violence that has occurred throughout history between different Christian sects that hate each other? Shit - just look at this board - Free and Ryggy do not regard you as a Christian - cuz you don't interpret the holy book the way they do. Life is so much simpler for us atheists.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (15) Sep 08, 2013
The bigger point here is that the question of the existence of god is of course a very meaningful question - especially when half the world is torn up with wars over which god is the true one.


Perhaps this will clarify,.... in reply to GhostofOtto saying metaphysics doesn't exist,.. I posted this above,...

"Btw, it doesn't really make sense to say there is 'no evidence for metaphysics'. Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions. You could say there is 'no evidence for gods existence', but like Spinoza one could equate all that is, the universe, with god and deprive you."

So yes, while the question is a legitimate one, it's 'meaninglessness' is due to it being unanswerable via scientific means. It is why I place atheists and theists in the same pile.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 08, 2013
Due to BHObama's desire to keep the borders open and hobble immigration authorities, Middle Easterners are coming across our southern borders with Mexico. Did you know that? Even the ChiComms are crossing the border into the U.S. They pretend to be Mexican and border patrol cannot catch all of them. They may be carrying Sarin or other chemical weapons; they may be lugging a suitcase nuclear bomb with them.
They will infiltrate into American cities while your president is concerned more about preserving what little credibility he has left, by attacking Assad's forces in Syria (without proof that Assad ordered chemical weapons to kill 1400 innocent Syrians).

You are worried about Shia and Sunni killing each other. How about worrying that AlQaeda could be here in the U.S. to kill US? Tell your president to close the borders and beef up the border patrol and stop giving support to our enemies, both domestic and foreign.
BHObama is a true Manchurian Candidate.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2013
Look at the unAmerican scumbag Obama_socks. Looks like he is too lazy to even watch the Manchurian Candidate.

John McCain's life follows the plot of the Manchurian Candidate much more closely than Obama's (Obama's doesn't at all). That isn't to say I'm not enough of a dumbfuck to believe McCain was a Manchurian Candidate, just that I see the irony (and racism) in claiming Obama is one even though his opponent's life actually mirrored the story.

It's the same racist vein that causes people to label him as a communist even though he's more conservative than Eisenhower.

PS: He's your president too.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
You are entitled to your opinion.

Correct - and as a religionist - you are of course entitled to tell me that I hate something that does not exist. See how arrogant you are.


If it doesn't exist, then why do you bother to comment in threads re: God and religion? Do you like wasting your time? Perhaps you hate the concept or the possibility of God's existence and you have to fight it

"Shia and Sunni have been fighting for centuries."

And the gentle loving Christians have never been involved in any kind of violence. See how naive you are - or do you truly not know about the religious violence that has occurred throughout history between different Christian sects that hate each other? Shit - just look at this board - Free and Ryggy do not regard you as a Christian - cuz you don't interpret the holy book the way they do. Life is so much simpler for us atheists.
-djr

I never said that of all Christians. / My beliefs and faith are not dependent on any religion.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (16) Sep 08, 2013
John McCain's life follows the plot of the Manchurian Candidate much more closely than Obama's


True, but so does Wilford Brimley and Barney Fife by that standard.
BAKOON
1.5 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
By "that standard" do you mean applying the movie's actual plot to the situation rather than using the term as a dog-whistle?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
IMO...atheists spend a lot of time thinking and talking about God because they fear that God does, indeed, exist, and, if that is the case, then atheists are in deep shit. LOL

Atheists who truly don't believe in the existence of God the Creator are less likely to concern themselves with an existence or non-existence. They would have more important things to worry about, such as whether or not Obama's leaving the borders wide open will result in Americans being gassed or blown to bits with a nuclear device. True atheists know how to prioritize.
Noumenon's agnosticism makes more sense. He will probably wait until all the data is in before jumping off the fence on either side.
Freethinking and Ryggesogn2 can read the Bible all they want, but if they aren't able to read between the lines as I have, they will just repeat the mantra of mainstream Christianity. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's most important to have a 1 on 1 relationship with God and Yeshua in private.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
Speaking of movies, here is Theghostofotto1923 in his sockpuppets, TheGhostofZephir, otto1932, Dick_Wolf, and VK1. Can anyone recall the name of the movie where that line came from?

TheGhostofZephir

4.7 / 5 (12)
Nov 22, 2010
If you want the hunt to stop - stop the duplicity.

It's too late for that in my book. There's a line, and once that line is crossed, it's war.

This troll is beneath contempt, beyond pardon, or redemption, or absolution.

He tasks me! He tasks me, and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Nibia, and round the Antares Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up!

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Captain Stumpy
1.1 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
@obama_socks
[p][p]but it's most important to have a 1 on 1 relationship with God and Yeshua in private.[/p][/p]

I think THAT is the key here. what scientists want is for religions to keep religion out of science. religion has NOTHING to do with science. a fact is a fact, how you interpret it is subjective, but it does not change the fact, only how you perceive it to be.
IMHO - this is how I feel. science should deal with provable facts, not un-provable conjecture. the two should be kept apart, for the sake empirical data.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
We all knew right away that this was not Zephyr...mainly because Zeph never used this kind of language. But Ethelred was completely fooled by Theghostofotto1923 who was, at that time, otto1932.

TheGhostofZephir3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2010
Just STFU already. Christ.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
@obama_socks
[p][p]but it's most important to have a 1 on 1 relationship with God and Yeshua in private.[/p][/p]

I think THAT is the key here. what scientists want is for religions to keep religion out of science. religion has NOTHING to do with science. a fact is a fact, how you interpret it is subjective, but it does not change the fact, only how you perceive it to be.
IMHO - this is how I feel. science should deal with provable facts, not un-provable conjecture. the two should be kept apart, for the sake empirical data.
-Captn.Stumpy

Yes, in private makes the relationship with God so much more effective...unless there is a discussion or gathering planned for like minded individuals.

But you misunderstand. My belief is that God is the SOURCE of ALL science. Scientific data and its discovery is within the physical realm and our 5 senses are able to detect it because WE are also in that realm.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
But God is not in the same realm as we are and that is why our senses cannot see Him. There are some who have a special gift that enables them to hear God and angels. I am not in that category. All I have in my experience are some miracles that have happened personally. I don't think it was just good luck as it happened more than once. But, that's me. Another person may never have such experiences.

But all that good stuff, and all the Laws of Physics were created by God, and humans have the chance to achieve and gain all that God has provided. He doesn't live on Earth or Mars, but on another plane of existence, and has the ability to transcend the barriers between our existence and His.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2013
.atheists spend a lot of time thinking and talking about God because they fear that God does, indeed, exist

I think you are projecting - your obsession with 'hunting' Otto leads you to think that others have similar obsessions.

I spend a lot of time thinking/reading/talking about science, technology, and also religion. My motivation is to be an active member of the generation that finally puts the ghosts of religions to rest, and see the human race begin to realize it's potential. We are of course making progress, but the head winds are strong - so we have to stay resolute.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2013
Noumenon - "It is why I place atheists and theists in the same pile."

It seems instructive to me that someone who rambles on about 'metaphysics' - does not even appreciate the titanic difference between an atheist, and a theist. We for sure do not belong in the same pile.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2013
Noumenon - "It is why I place atheists and theists in the same pile."

It seems instructive to me that someone who rambles on about 'metaphysics' - does not even appreciate the titanic difference between an atheist, and a theist. We for sure do not belong in the same pile.


I understand well the difference. It is you who do not understand the similarities.

I already explained it what sense there are similarities. I qualified that those atheists who state "categorically, that god does not exist,...". It is beyond scientific applicability to demonstrate that god does or does not exist. That is the salient point which justifies me in tossing both onto the same heap.

As already explained above, my mentioning of metaphysics is in the pejorative sense, and mostly about physics.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
@djr
@Stumpy

I am not attempting to correct your opinions, that is for you to change or not.
But you both appear to have equated God with religion. As was said before, there are many, many religions. Some believe in one deity and others believe in multiple deities.
But there is only ONE Creator of everything - all matter/energy was created by the one true God. We call Him God or Father. If God has a name, we are not aware of it.
But, in times of crisis, we who have faith, call upon God to save us or someone we love. At times, our prayer is answered, but not always, because what happens or doesn't, is according to God's plan. That is why we can only hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Religions began in order to appease the god or gods who were worshipped by early man to provide protection. But it is only later, in the Middle East, where God the CREATOR was revealed to be the true God, and not one of the false idols from before. There is a huge difference.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2013
I'm starting to think BAKOON and obama_socks are the same person. Putting one against the other to try and make people feel sorry for him so they might be more perceptible to what he is preaching.


Nope. Nor is BAKOON, TheGhostOfOtto1923. He is an idiot rating troll extraordinaire that used to go by the name FrankHerbert. He is likely responsible for "open" and "toot" as well. Probably a bed ridden paraplegic on welfare.

I picked up on that phrase "dog-whistle", the pointless trolling after members like a adolescent, and the incessant and mindless accusations of 'racism'.

If you google search...

site:phys.org frankherbert dog whistle

.... the first 8 of 9 links will contain FrankHerbert posting the phrase "dog whistle". There are other e-forensics as well.

By "that standard" do you mean applying the movie's actual plot to the situation rather than using the term as a dog-whistle? - BAKOON
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 08, 2013
The term "religion" is applied to doctrine whether or not it involves belief in the one true God, or in false gods...or no gods. It is the doctrine itself that defines it as a religion. The congregation of worshippers and believers in that doctrine are not the religion itself, although the congregation supports the doctrine and its dogma. It is that which is written as doctrine that is the religion, with or without belief and faith in God.

So when you say that you hate religion, you are actually saying that you hate the doctrine that defines itself as a religion. Without the doctrine and its accompanying dogma, there is nothing to hate. You can murder all the congregants but you cannot kill the original doctrine...and it still remains.
What it boils down to...is that you cannot kill an idea. The "idea" of God the Creator is what you hate. You cannot get at God Himself to kill, so you have to settle for the concept or idea of a Creator to kill.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 08, 2013
@Noumenon
I have said much earlier that BAKOON is a sockpuppet that has taken the place of FrankHerbert who was banned (for egregious site infractions.) And BAKOON is just another sockpuppet that is used by Theghostofotto1923 to harass people whom Blotto doesn't want to harass in his Otto name. (See my Profile for the list of Blotto's sockpuppet names). In the thread from 2010, (link provided above) I think it was KwasniczJ (Zephyr) who first mentioned Dissociative Identity Disorder.
As a matter of fact, YOU were in that thread also, but Ethelred was fooled. He thought that TheghostofZephir, Dick_Wolf, VK1 and otto1932 were all different people. There was no Theghostofotto1923 until Nov 27, 2010. Ethelred didn't know that those 4 names in that thread were all one person. Blotto thought that he had everyone fooled. Blotto also created Theghostofalizee, TheghostofKwasniczJ and other Theghostof to downrate others who would think that it was Zephyr downrating them.
djr
3.3 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2013
Noumenon: "It is beyond scientific applicability to demonstrate that god does or does not exist. "

No it is not. It may be beyond the reach of our current science - but it does not stop us asking the question - from a rationalistic perspective - and it does not preclude the possibility that some day (perhaps 1 billion years from now) science will be confident in the answer to this question. Of course at this point it is possible that there is a god - some master creator of all that we see - bit just as I do not believe in the philosophy of the scientologists (even though it is of course POSSIBLE that we were seeded from aliens visiting the planet millions of years ago) - I am comfortable calling myself an atheist in regard to that possibility. For many of us the term atheist is saying - 'the chances of that being reality are so miniscule - I do not even consider it a possibility. It is a mathematical idea - when a number gets so small - we call it 0.
djr
3 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2013
Sox: "The "idea" of God the Creator is what you hate."

No it is not. You and Rygg and Free make me really sick - always trying to tell other people how they think. That is not your prerogative. You are all so afraid of people who do not support your little group think - that you spend half your life telling others how they think. You claim to support the idea of individual autonomy and responsibility - then tell me how I think.

It is not the idea of God that I hate. It is organized religion. People getting together - deciding that their holy text is the only true text. Next you have bloodshed, and violence - all fighting over whose holy text is correct.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2013
I said, the "IDEA" of God the Creator is what you HATE...not what you think. I cannot determine what it is you are thinking. But you cannot possibly hate God the Creator Himself, as you do not believe in His existence. If you hate something or someone that you believe to be nonexistent, then that smacks of a mental illness. If you equate God with religion, then it is the doctrine of that religion that offends you. Therefore, I suggest that it is the IDEA of a Creator that you hate.

You say you hate organized religion - people getting together? Not for any other reason but to discuss their Bible? That's crazy. Who are you to decide whether or not people should get together for whatever reason as long as nobody is hurt by it? Other than Jim Jones and some polygamists, or some Amish whose beard was cut off, there have been no wars over religion with bloodshed in the United States. If you know of any, kindly inform us with a link.
BAKOON
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, Delusional Religious Nutbag

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
BAKOON
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2013
LOL...there is nothing evil or false about what I said regarding what happens to evil people's Soul when they die. Of course, the Souls of all evil people remain in their body after death, and the Soul can FEEL all the pain and agony of his/her rotting corpse which is in the process of breaking down into its atoms and going back to the dirt. This is a normal process because the evil person condemns himself while alive.

If you don't believe, then ignore what I've said. It doesn't make any difference to me. You can plaster my comment all over the internet for all I care. You condemn your Soul to a dark Hell while you await Judgment.
-Obama_socks, Arrogant Fool

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 08, 2013
@djr and other atheists

Now if you are REALLY anti-religion, rather than wail and moan over peaceable religions in the U.S., maybe you would care to go to the Middle East and explain to the Muslims how you hate religion and the way religionists pore over their holy books and fight with other religions as to whose books are correct. You could go first to the Sunnis and then to the Shiites and tell both groups that they are wrong for practicing the religion of Islam. You might also want to mention that you hate Christians, and they, in kind, will agree with you. I'm sure that when you come back home in a body bag, you will be given a twenty-one gun salute by your fellow atheists and a great sendoff with a headstone to commemorate your bravery.

Al Qaeda loves atheists.
Humpty
1.6 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
If only people would have faith in Jesus, the founder of the worlds first gay and only gay chuch - with his 12 boyfriends, and the super league of magic men, including Mo' (Mohammmed), Kris (Krishna), Bud (Budda) and all the others like Osirus, Thor, and the 5 million in the bardo states....

And if people only prayed to them all to magic everything they want into existance, like gold and food, and temple prostitutes, then everything would be all right.

ThomasQuinn
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
Noumenon: "It is beyond scientific applicability to demonstrate that god does or does not exist. "

No it is not. It may be beyond the reach of our current science - but it [...] does not preclude the possibility that some day (perhaps 1 billion years from now) science will be confident in the answer to this question. [...] For many of us the term atheist is saying - 'the chances of that being reality are so miniscule - I do not even consider it a possibility. It is a mathematical idea - when a number gets so small - we call it 0.


I'm sorry, but that's really not a very good argument. First of all, we don't have a clear definition of what is meant by god, therefore we can't even calculate the chance (so you can't round it down to 0). Second, if the traditional interpretation of god as transcendent is true, there is no evidence at all to be found in the observable universe. Religion can't answer questions of science and science can't answer questions of religion.
ThomasQuinn
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2013
[Double Post, Sorry]
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2013
First of all, we don't have a clear definition of what is meant by god, therefore we can't even calculate the chance (so you can't round it down to 0).

That's not how it works. You can't claim that something has a probability larger than zero just because you made it up.

Do froduledums exist? I just made them up. Is the chance of them existing therefore larger than zero? No way.
Same for 'god'. Even a clear definition won't change that.

Religion can't answer questions of science and science can't answer questions of religion.
Unfortunately that's not how the religions see it. The universe is real. Anything real is open to scientific enquiry. By your argument religion has no use in this universe - as it answers no questions (which is, frankly, a pretty supportable argument).
ThomasQuinn
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
First of all, we don't have a clear definition of what is meant by god, therefore we can't even calculate the chance (so you can't round it down to 0).

That's not how it works. You can't claim that something has a probability larger than zero just because you made it up.

Do froduledums exist? I just made them up. Is the chance of them existing therefore larger than zero? No way.
Same for 'god'. Even a clear definition won't change that.

Religion can't answer questions of science and science can't answer questions of religion.
Unfortunately that's not how the religions see it. The universe is real. Anything real is open to scientific enquiry. By your argument religion has no use in this universe - as it answers no questions (which is, frankly, a pretty supportable argument).


You don't get it. You can't claim something has a probability of 0 just because you feel like it either. I don't care how "religion sees it", I simply go for consistent reasoning.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2013
You can't claim something has a probability of 0 just because you feel like it either.

Unless there is an indication that something exists (i.e. EVIDENCE) it is a non-issue. Claiming any kinds of (positive) probabilities for something like that is nonsense. It's not "because I feel like it" it's simple math:

Reason being: There are an infinite number of impossible things which can be made up. If one accorded such made-up things even the smallest possibility that would mean that some of these things are true (which they clearly can't be, since they're impossible).

Making up stuff does not shift something from the world of ideas one iota to the real world. Not even in terms of probability. THAT is consistent reasoning.
ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
@djr and other atheists

Now if you are REALLY anti-religion, rather than wail and moan over peaceable religions in the U.S., maybe you would care to go to the Middle East and explain to the Muslims how you hate religion and the way religionists pore over their holy books and fight with other religions as to whose books are correct. You could go first to the Sunnis and then to the Shiites and tell both groups that they are wrong for practicing the religion of Islam. You might also want to mention that you hate Christians, and they, in kind, will agree with you. I'm sure that when you come back home in a body bag, you will be given a twenty-one gun salute by your fellow atheists and a great sendoff with a headstone to commemorate your bravery.

Al Qaeda loves atheists.


Maybe you need to check into a mental health clinic for your obsessive far-right obsession with muslims.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2013
I said, the "IDEA" of God the Creator is what you HATE...

Telling me what I 'HATE', is telling me what I think. Knock it off.

There has been rivers of blood shed over religion in the U.S. One could argue that the U.S. is based on religious imperialism. Are you unaware of what was done to the people who lived here before the Europeans arrived? Are you unaware of the religious (Christian) arguments that were used to justify slavery?
djr
3 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2013
Thomas: "Religion can't answer questions of science and science can't answer questions of religion."

Not true at all. Let me give one example. Can faith healers truly heal people? This is a question of religion. If faith healers can heal people - we have strong evidence in support of the claims of the religious. Science can of course answer this question. The answer is of course no.
ThomasQuinn
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2013
Thomas: "Religion can't answer questions of science and science can't answer questions of religion."

Not true at all. Let me give one example. Can faith healers truly heal people? This is a question of religion. If faith healers can heal people - we have strong evidence in support of the claims of the religious. Science can of course answer this question. The answer is of course no.


That's not really a fair example, is it? Faith healing is not a central part of any religion I'm aware of, it's a marginal phenomenon associated with religion (and often renounced). You could compare it to alchemy - it is related to science and there are certainly overlaps, but it is not science per se. When I say "questions of religion", I am, as I think you're well aware, referring to matters like cosmogenesis, ontology and, in general, the reasons for the laws of nature being as they are. Science deals with how, philosophy/religion with why. IMHO, religion = debased philosophy.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
Unless there is an indication that something exists (i.e. EVIDENCE) it is a non-issue.


That is only true with respect to Phenomenal Reality, to which science and inductive reasoning is limited.

Phenomenal reality is necessarily delimited given the limited intellectual faculties of mans speculative reason,... which is to say, our conceptual structure and synthetic sensibilities are mind dependent limitations on what can be known even in principal.

The mind is just a biological mechanism that feeds on experience and constructs representations,.. it cannot possibly reproduce reality as it is in itself.

Your only way out of this logical and epistemological dilemma is through metaphysics,... to have faith that phenomenal-reality, which unavoidably has a mind dependent component, is nevertheless all that there IS,... that the mind is omnipotent in ability to penetrate into 'ding an sich'.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
Claiming any kinds of (positive) probabilities for something like that is nonsense. It's not "because I feel like it" it's simple math:


And for the same reason, claiming any kind of probability for something which is not quantitative, is nonsense and an abomination of math.

Reason being: There are an infinite number of impossible things which can be made up.


There are "an infinite number of [...removed logical redundancy...] things which can be made up", yes, but NOT an infinite number of things which can be made up and believed by otherwise rational people, independently, across cultures and eons.

Making up stuff does not shift something from the world of ideas one iota to the real world. Not even in terms of probability. THAT is consistent reasoning.


That reasoning is defective. Your use of the phrase "made up" is invalid here. Logically speaking it is a false argument where you assume as proved the very point that is being argued.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 09, 2013
Who is worse for metaphysical speculation, believers in god, who only need one such entity, or physicists who should know better, who propose as many as will get them out of a jam,.... the substantive nature of the wavefunction,.. the multiverse,.. strings as existing entities rather than a means of ordering experience,. etc
ThomasQuinn
2 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2013
That is only true with respect to Phenomenal Reality, to which science and inductive reasoning is limited.

Phenomenal reality is necessarily delimited given the limited intellectual faculties of mans speculative reason,... which is to say, our conceptual structure and synthetic sensibilities are mind dependent limitations on what can be known even in principal.

The mind is just a biological mechanism that feeds on experience and constructs representations,.. it cannot possibly reproduce reality as it is in itself.

Your only way out of this logical and epistemological dilemma is through metaphysics,... to have faith that phenomenal-reality, which unavoidably has a mind dependent component, is nevertheless all that there IS,... that the mind is omnipotent in ability to penetrate into 'ding an sich'.


That is just one possible resolution of the problem. A solely material world-view is an equally feasible and equally unlikely resolution. Everything is essentially a construct.
djr
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
Thomas: "That's not really a fair example"

I disagree - I think it is a very fair example. Science can and does test the claims of the religious. I think you are dismissing the example - because it clearly disproves your point - that science cannot answer the questions of religion. In time (perhaps a billion years) I believe that science will in fact answer all the questions we can ask - and religion will be a cute practice that superstitious people use to engage in many generations ago.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 09, 2013
Religious statements about earth based events that are physical and so amendable to scientific investigation certainly can be answered, that is correct. And yes, faith healers can be exposed as frauds by experimentation, or physical events claimed as miracles can be explained with science. Obviously the narrative of creation in the bible is disproved by science as well.

These are examples of where religion has failed to answer questions of science. There are questions where science must fail, no matter how much time goes by, in answering questions of metaphysics. When each reaches beyond its domain of applicability.
JohnGee
2.8 / 5 (13) Sep 09, 2013
Atheism, as it is commonly used, is more a denial of any gods of any known religion, rather than a belief in the impossibility of gods.

The problem with being highly nuanced and labeling yourself as agnostic rather than atheist is evangelically religious people will see that as an opening that you are in doubt --about their religion-- not just the idea of a generic deity.

I am agnostic, but I am NOT agnostic about Yahweh/Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Yoda, whatever.

Instead of typing all those words, I could have just called myself an atheist and conveyed 95% of what I meant, especially when the other party has no desire to hear the other 5% anyway.

Here is an example from the movie Dumb and Dumber: http://www.youtub...jNnDMfxA

So it may be a little more reasonable to be agnostic rather than atheist, but it is a hell of a lot more reasonable to be atheist than it is to subscribe to any individual religion. Equating theism and atheism is wronger than wrong.
djr
2 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2013
Noumenon: "There are questions where science must fail, no matter how much time goes by, in answering questions of metaphysics.

I disagree - get back to me in a billion years or so - and we may have a conclusion.
rug
1 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2013
I disagree - get back to me in a billion years or so - and we may have a conclusion.

Only possible if we figure out how to live forever. Must deal with the present issues first.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
So it may be a little more reasonable to be agnostic rather than atheist, but it is a hell of a lot more reasonable to be atheist than it is to subscribe to any individual religion. Equating theism and atheism is wronger than wrong.


The context in which I equated the two wasn't with respect to religion. I explained the sense in which they were equated several times now.
JohnGee
2 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2013
Maybe you've had to explain it so times because no one gives a shit and you intentionally come across as contrarian?
rug
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 09, 2013
@Noumenon and @JohnGee
Why fight among yourselves? Both groups have a common understanding of reality. Many ways agnostic and atheist are the same. Some even claim that are the same thing. From what I see there are only some very minor details as differences.

Neither of you agree with religion, so can't you just leave it at and let it be?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
I don't know why JohnGee is getting upset. Atheist don't like people attacking their religion I guess (j/K, ....sort of).

Maybe you've had to explain it so times because no one gives a shit and you intentionally come across as contrarian?


Evidently you gave a shit enough to invent two new straw-man contexts in which to frame my comparison. Did you intend to post contrary opinions to mine or was that accidental? If not, then I will assume you agree with me.

So it may be a little more reasonable to be agnostic rather than atheist, but it is a hell of a lot more reasonable to be atheist than it is to subscribe to any individual religion.


I wasn't speaking about religions, but, yes I agree with this.

Equating theism and atheism is wronger than wrong.


I qualified those atheist for which I made that comparison, as follows,....
"atheists who say categorically that 'god does not exist',... "

rug
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 09, 2013
Well, I tried to make peace. Oh well, guess I should sell some tickets to this one.....
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
No need, I'll let him shut off the lights. It would be more entertaining if a few believers argued rather than three agnostics and a few atheists though.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
We all knew right away that this was not Zephyr
-By 'we' are you referring to yourself and all those dirty stuffed animals in the back window of your pinto? You know, your only friends?

'The ghost of ____' gang was created by someone to attack zephyr. They also dropped me a full point. And why would I do that to myself?
delimited given the limited intellectual faculties of mans speculative reason
Whats cooking? Smells like pasta. What specifically in your estimation requires this meta-physical in order to define it (which according to your def is impossible because no info can come from it)?

Kant and others needed it so they could lay claim to lay claim to such things as emotions and compulsions. But we know much more about those things now. We know that they are entirely physiological, and as such can be modelled and their origins assigned to specific areas of the brain.

AND they can be effectively altered with drugs. Drugs are also entirely physical.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2013
That's not really a fair example, is it? Faith healing is not a central part of any religion I'm aware of
Thats because your awareness is pretty stunted dude. Ever hear of xian science?

"Christian Science practitioners provide spiritual treatment through prayer that results in healing—which includes the resolution of relationship or financial difficulties, physical cure, and transformed lives."

Most religions thrive on the promise of healing through communing with the spirits.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
to have faith that phenomenal-reality, which unavoidably has a mind dependent component, is nevertheless all that there IS,...
You are confusing confidence with faith. Just like any (other) religionist. The more success science has in describing how the world functions, the more confidence we have that it is able to describe ALL of it. Only you faithers want to invoke your netherrealms as soon as any scientist says 'we dont know yet'.
that the mind is omnipotent in ability to penetrate into 'ding an sich'
You actually had the balls to use this phrase. There IS NO 'thing in itself'. Why cant you grok this??

There is no universal thing called 'knowledge' that only word-mongers have the ability to discern. There IS NO nature of being. There IS NO fundamental truth. There is no god.

Science tells specifically that our attention and observation have NO effect on physical processes. This has been explained to you many times by many different people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
Here nou - argue your ding an sich with these people.
http://www.youtub...qm1Q3VWg

-THEY have props. Do you have props?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
You actually had the balls to use this phrase. There IS NO 'thing in itself'. Why cant you grok this??


As explained to you on previous occasions, all I mean by "thing in itself" (noumenon), is reality as it is unconceptualized. Surely, you understand that having knowledge implies a conceptualization of realty, ...and that a conceptualization of reality implies a representation of it, ...and that a representation of it can not be identical in form to the original, by definition. This is simply a logical conclusion from epistemological considerations.

I don't hold any religion, nor believe in god, and I've stated several times that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge,.. when will you get this?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
Science tells specifically that our attention and observation have NO effect on physical processes


Actually, qm states the exact opposite.

There is no universal thing called 'knowledge' that only word-mongers have the ability to discern. There IS NO nature of being. There IS NO fundamental truth. There is no god.


And, according to your previous posts, "minds don't exist",.. so on that basis further discussion is pointless.
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
"metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge"

But science is only interested in knowledge (me too). Therefore trying to discuss metaphysics on a science web site is - well very strange. Why don't you start your own web site about metaphysics. Then we can get on with the business of science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2013
all I mean by "thing in itself" (noumenon), is reality as it is unconceptualized
And by this you imply 'that which can never be understood'
Surely, you understand that having knowledge implies a conceptualization of realty
No. This is your leap of faith, the point where your babble kicks in.
http://www.youtub...WBcPVPMo

Your babble is not informative. It is not illuminating. It has never led to a deeper understanding of anything. And it produces nothing but more babble, counterbabble, antibabble, retrobabble and neobabble.
Actually, qm states the exact opposite
When you 'observe' something you bounce something else off it. At the subatomic scale this changes the state of the object in some way.
I don't hold any religion
Philosophy is a religion with many sects. The notion that reality can be explored by simply thinking about it is nonsense. Sorry.

And like religion the more science discounts it the more entrenched and obtuse you all become.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
"metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge"

But science is only interested in knowledge (me too). Therefore trying to discuss metaphysics on a science web site is - well very strange. Why don't you start your own web site about metaphysics. Then we can get on with the business of science.


For the third time, I mention metaphysics only in the pejorative sense, as should have been clear from the quote you chose.

How many times have YOU mentioned religion above in the pejorative sense? Why don't you start a web site about being against religion? It is strange that you should post your anti-religion rants here. I'll be nice and just call you a hypocrite.

Again, when I mention epistemology in other threads, it is usually in the context of physics , which is entirely relevant.

Google this for examples,...

site:phys.org noumenon epistemology
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
all I mean by "thing in itself" (noumenon), is reality as it is unconceptualized

And by this you imply 'that which can never be understood'


Yes. Do you not recognize that as a simple logical truism?

Surely, you understand that having knowledge implies a conceptualization of realty
No. This is your leap of faith,


Maybe you should think this over more.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2013
context of physics, which is entirely relevant
"Epistemology
the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity"

Knowledge is not a universal thing to which can be ascribed a nature or grounds. This is a concocted illusion like consciousness or the soul, good for much talk but little info.

No philo (including kant) predicted the counterintuitive nature of relativity. How could they? They had no access to the experimental data which had to be produced before a theory to explain it could be developed.

One need only compare the things science has discovered about the universe with what philos had said it was, to conclude that their various modes of inquiry were BOGUS.

The only reliable method of accruing useful knowledge in any particular context, is the scientific method. And no matter what any philo might tell you, it is not a philosophy. It is the antithesis of philosophy. It marked the end of idle speculation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
Yes. Do you not recognize that as a simple logical truism?
Science gives us increasing confidence that there is NOTHING which cannot be understood. This may ultimately prove to be false. But only science has the tools to find this out.

And trying to figure out if this is true or not beforehand is about as futile as trying to build a nuclear weapon in 1850.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2013
Maybe you should think this over more
Maybe you should watch the feynman clip one more time.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
Science gives us increasing confidence that there is NOTHING which cannot be understood.

Sounds like auto want's to learn how to be God.

What hubris!

"

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

Max Planck"

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? [..] Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,'" - Albert Einstein

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains." - Steven Hawking

These are physicists who agree with me, Otto. B. D'Epagnat, a physicist, wrote an entire book on the matter. Philo is integral.
djr
4 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2013
Noumenon - I have just read back through this entire thread. Either you are deliberately being obtuse - or you are a very poor communicator. It is very reasonable for one to look at this quote - "There are questions where science must fail, no matter how much time goes by, in answering questions of metaphysics." and to understand that you are promoting the construct of metaphysics. This quote in no way gives me the impression that you are arguing against metaphysics - but that you are trying to establish that there are two perfectly valid spheres of enquiry - one called science, and one called metaphysics. Here is another quote that leads me to that understanding. "Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions." How on earth could I interpret this as to be referring to metaphysics in the pajorative?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2013
Let me quote myself.

"Physicists are people too and sometimes they might tend to wax poetic or philosophical. Some still entertain notions of religious immortality or granted wishes. Some are afraid of the dark I suppose.

"But if they are competent, these notions will not affect in any way their pursuit of scientific inquiry. Science does not depend on individual talents nor is it susceptible to individual weaknesses. It is the cumulative result of 1000s of individuals building on the work of their predecessors.

"It is always a team effort. It is bound by the very laws it wishes to illuminate. Those laws do not change depending on who is looking at them or how they are observed."

-I paraphrase. Planck is dead by the way. So is heisenberg.

In the Following vid you can see that religionism is very personality-oriented. But any scientist could refute these idiots using the same hard facts.
http://www.youtub...vid4GkEY
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain. - Richard Feynman

The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired. - Steven Hawking

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 09, 2013
Auto believes he can be God, but then he claims God does not exist. Why does he insist he can be God?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 09, 2013
It is very reasonable for one to look at this quote...

There are questions where science must fail, no matter how much time goes by, in answering questions of metaphysics.


....and to understand that you are promoting the construct of metaphysics. This quote in no way gives me the impression that you are arguing against metaphysics - but that you are trying to establish that there are two perfectly valid spheres of [inquiry] - one called science, and one called metaphysics.


Nope, I'm only trying to establish the limits of valid scientific inquiry. I stated this plainly. IOW I'm trying to establish there that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, even in principal. I stated this plainly, so why would I think that it would be a valid form of inquiry? You're reading into things what you desire to, not what it there.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 09, 2013
Here is another quote that leads me to that understanding.
"Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions."
How on earth could I interpret this as to be referring to metaphysics in the [pejorative]?


The questions exist as a matter of fact, and are legitimate ones as being natural to ask, but are scientifically UNANSWERABLE. How is that ambiguous or not pejorative when I state they are unanswerable?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2013
Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain. - Richard Feynman

The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired. - Steven Hawking
"[Science] is always a team effort. It is bound by the very laws it wishes to illuminate. Those laws do not change depending on who is looking at them or how they are observed."
Nope, I'm only trying to establish the limits of valid scientific enquiry. I stated this plainly.
So you did. But you CANT do this no matter how many words you want to throw at it. 'Knowledge' is not some universal abstract thing you can define as such or set limits on. To imply that it is is a philo SCAM.

Only scientists can discover what they can learn, by using the scientific method.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2013
Noumenon: It was very reasonable of me to understand that you were actually supporting metaphysics. This quote is one example of what lead me to that understanding - "Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions" So - if you had taken any business communications classes - you would have learned ideas like - 'What I think I just said - may not be what you just heard' So instead of saying thigs like 'You're reading into things what you desire to, not what it there.' You could show some understanding of the vagaries of communication - look for misunderstandings - and clarify for others. Perhaps you could notice the fact that a number of posters have commented on your sophistry, and confusing style - could be good information for you.
rug
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2013
@Noumenon and @djr
Does this mean there is finally at understanding of what was going on? You both seem like logical intelligent people. Even if you don't agree on beliefs you should at least be able to come to a point where you agree to disagree.

I know, seems strange, of all the people on here I'm the one to make this point? lol
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 10, 2013
Yes, in private makes the relationship with God so much more effective...unless there is a discussion or gathering planned for like minded individuals.[/p] [/p]
[p] [p] But you misunderstand. My belief is that God is the SOURCE of ALL science. Scientific data and its discovery is within the physical realm and our 5 senses are able to detect it because WE are also in that realm.


LIKE MINDED being the key to that statement.

I did not misunderstand. GOD is UNPROVABLE, therefor we cannot collect empirical data on Him, therefor no matter what personal belief is, cannot be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method. EMPIRICAL data should be the ONLY data involved with SCIENCE. not equating God with religion. I am saying empirical data is not empirical if you insert non provable data or qualifiers. keep science scientific.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2013
GOD is UNPROVABLE...Him
Whats with the capital H? Are you religious? If so you must know that the god of your books has indeed been disproven scientifically.

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai." Ze'ev Herzog, Tel Aviv University archaeologist

The philo gods are unprovable by design however. Perhaps you may want to worship one of them. Who knows? Maybe they appreciate fawning.
Captain Stumpy
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
actually, I usually type everything up in a word processor first because it does not always go well typing into phys.org. it jumps ad skips. it just came out that way. i usually don't capitalize at all unless highlighting something, like putting GOD is UNPROVABLE.

don't mistake any caps for some underlying psychological reasons. i have big fingers and a small keyboard on a laptop. if it is properly capped at all it is because i might use the word processor first...

just sayin...
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Theghostofblotto1923 continues to prevaricate re: "you must know that the god of your books has indeed been disproven scientifically."

The existence of God the Creator has never been proved or disproved "scientifically". There are no known methods or experimentation that may be falsified either for or against such an outrageous lie. Blotto practices conjecture or guesswork in that area so as to eliminate critical thinking in others who may wish to examine and ponder the Bible's true meaning either as literature, a history of the Jews, or as a Book of Holy Scripture.

Blotto is heavily obsessed with that which he hates, ie, God, the Bible and religion. Anyone who cannot think for himself in a coherent manner will fall into Blotto's obsessions also. Hatred of God, the Bible and mainly the Christian religion makes Blotto's demonic possession all the more obvious to those who understand exactly why such obsessive hatred exists.
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
The existence of God the Creator has never been proved or disproved "scientifically". There are no known methods or experimentation that may be falsified either for or against such an outrageous lie.

Ummmm, do you realize what you just said? I bet St Peter is looking at you knowing eye about now.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
Re: Philosophy vs Science

Both Noumenon and Theghostofotto1923 (and everyone else) are PHILOSOPHIZING with every word they type if those words denote conjecture and are explanatory of an IDEA. An idea is NOT built of cold, hard facts since such facts would fall into the category of a thing that is indisputably the case. Blotto does not provide anything indisputable, but only his ideas which are easily falsifiable.

Theghostofotto1923 is long on philosophizing while exclaiming with such certainty that Philosophy is dead. It is not and never will be as long as ideas are shared with others or with oneself.

obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Noumenon: It was very reasonable of me to understand that you were actually supporting metaphysics. This quote is one example of what lead me to that understanding - "Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions" So - if you had taken any business communications classes - you would have learned ideas like - 'What I think I just said - may not be what you just heard' So instead of saying thigs like 'You're reading into things what you desire to, not what it there.' You could show some understanding of the vagaries of communication - look for misunderstandings - and clarify for others. Perhaps you could notice the fact that a number of posters have commented on your sophistry, and confusing style - could be good information for you.
-djr

Actually, Noumenon made it quite clear what he meant. Metaphysics is not supported by hard and defensible facts, but the questions pertaining to it are valid
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
The existence of God the Creator has never been proved or disproved "scientifically". There are no known methods or experimentation that may be falsified either for or against such an outrageous lie.

Ummmm, do you realize what you just said? I bet St Peter is looking at you knowing eye about now.
-rug

The "outrageous lie I referred to was Blotto's statement, and I quote, "you must know that the god of your books has indeed been disproven scientifically."
djr
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2013
Otto: This statement in no way conveys the idea that Noumenon is referring to metaphysics in the pejorative - "Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions"

Now we can debate to death about what one person meant - and how another person read what was said. Communication is a very complex issue people often mean one thing - but another person reads it a different way. The best thing is to check back and forth in terms of what was meant, and what was heard - until you are comfortable that the communication is clear. Statements like - "what I said was very clear" are not helpful.
freethinking
1 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
God is dis-proven scientifically? Only Otto can say that with a straight face. Otto, when it comes to God, the Bible, religion, Christianity, etc. it's best for your inflated ego to remain quite so you can go on thinking that others are fools, than to speak and be shown that actually you are the fool.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2013
Sorry Otto - last post was meant for Sox - I know - I will burn in hell for that one....
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
Otto: This statement in no way conveys the idea that Noumenon is referring to metaphysics in the pejorative - "Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions"

Now we can debate to death about what one person meant - and how another person read what was said. [...]. The best thing is to check back and forth in terms of what was meant, and what was heard - until you are comfortable that the communication is clear. Statements like - "what I said was very clear" are not helpful.


Actually it was clear in context, but let's say it wasn't,.. when I subsequently tell you multiple times I mean it in the pejorative sense , and state plainly multiple times that "metaphysics can not be a source of knowledge"...and yet you continue on with an accusation, I have to start thinking you're dishonestly feigning confusing to be the contrarian.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2013
God is dis-proven scientifically? Only Otto can say that with a straight face. Otto, when it comes to God, the Bible, religion, Christianity, etc. it's best for your inflated ego to remain quite so you can go on thinking that others are fools
If he made the evidence disappear and replaced it with contrary evidence, then he is a liar. If he wasnt aware that the myths were untrue, then he is an incompetent.

Either way, he is NOT the god you believe in. You know, the omniscient, morally impeccable paragon of goodness that the books say he iis. He is a liar and/or a fool.

Science has made this very clear. YOUR god doesnt exist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2013
Actually it was clear in context, but let's say it wasn't,.. when I subsequently tell you multiple times I mean it in the pejorative sense , and state plainly multiple times that "metaphysics can not be a source of knowledge"...and yet you continue on with an accusation, I have to start thinking you're dishonestly feigning confusing to be the contrarian
Yeah quit waffling. Is the metaphysical real to you or not? Do you use it to explain certain things or not? When you say it cant be a source of knowledge then you still IMPLY that it is a THING. Yes or what?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2013
Sorry Otto - last post was meant for Sox - I know - I will burn in hell for that one....
If you feed it it will only thrive. It will follow you home and live under your porch and you never will get that crap smell out and no one will ever come to visit you ever again.

Just keep that in mind.
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
-rug

The "outrageous lie I referred to was Blotto's statement, and I quote, "you must know that the god of your books has indeed been disproven scientifically."

Thats twice.....do I hear a rooster calling?
rug
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
God is dis-proven scientifically? Only Otto can say that with a straight face. Otto, when it comes to God, the Bible, religion, Christianity, etc. it's best for your inflated ego to remain quite so you can go on thinking that others are fools, than to speak and be shown that actually you are the fool.

Not that I would normally defend Otto, but I do remember a few claims religion has made that science has proven wrong.
Earth - center of the universe.
Planets - orbit in perfect circles.
God - in the sky

So in a way he does have a point although he did over reach a bit.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
This statement in no way conveys the idea that Noumenon is referring to metaphysics in the pejorative - "Metaphysics is a realm of questions, which though unanswerable via science, are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions"
-djr

Let's take it one by one, aye?

1. Metaphysics is a realm of questions = Questions abound in regard to different forms of metaphysics.

2. Which though unanswerable via science = Science has no answers to the questions re: metaphysics. Therefore, attempts by science to explain metaphysics are illegitimate.

3. Are nonetheless legitimate and existent questions. = See #1

Perhaps djr missed the part where Noumenon said that he is Agnostic?

It appears that Metaphysics meets with Noumenon's contempt or disapproval, but he concedes that questions regarding M.P. are valid in any case.

At least, that is MY take on this issue.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2013
Noumenon: "and yet you continue on with an accusation, I have to start thinking you're dishonestly feigning confusing to be the contrarian."

You are of course free to think what every you want. I am not feinging confusion - I genuinly understood that you were speaking in support of metaphysics. I think that the segment of your post that I have quoted numerous times - gives very clear indication that you are actually promoting the discipline of metaphysics. I am happy to be corrected - and accepty your correction. Sorry that you do not understand how communication often needs clarification. I emphasize again that I was in no way being disingenuous. I have read back through the thread several times - and continue to feel that your message was not blatantly perjorative to metaphysics. You also notice that Otto and others expressed some confusion. Should not be a bid deal - if you are willing to understand that often things just need clarifying.
djr
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2013
So Sox - moving on from Noumenon's intent - I think that horse is dead - but answer me this.

You say "attempts by science to explain metaphysics are illegitimate."

Please define metaphysics for me - and give me an example of a question that is a metaphysical question - and cannot (now or in the future) be answered by science.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 10, 2013
That's correct OS. Anything that is proposed as ontologically existing that however is unobservable in principal, is metaphysical. Since we can not know Reality except by conceptualizing it and so providing its form,.. purely logically, it stands to reason that the resulting 'phenomenal reality' is delimited in scope.

I'm just stating the same thing that Heisenberg, Hawking, Planck, and Einstein did in the above quotes**,. I'm just making use of Kantian terminology with the phenomenal/Noumenal distinction.

**that we can't acquire knowledge of 'independent reality',..meaning, apart from artificial intellectual constructs that WE supply to give conceptual form as a consequence of and prerequisite to knowledge given the nature of mind.

Otto stated Kant didn't know of non-intuitive nature of modern physics. Correct, he supposed that Eucliean geometry was a necessary intuition of space for experience to be possible, thus claimed it as transcendental a-priori synthetic knowledge...
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 10, 2013
... a metaphysical synthetic knowledge of Reality not acquired through experience.

I don't necessarily** agree with him here nor do I make use of this. In fact the opposite as I stated repeatably, that our a-priori 'categories of thought' are an artificial synthesis,... that clearly fails at the QM realm.

**Incidentally in GR, Riemann space IS Euclidean in the limit locally, at tangent space. Also, space is clearly an intuition of thought necessary and used as a means for ordering experience, yet is not observed apart from relating things,... and is why Einstein was careful to define relativity 'operationally' , by defining time and space physically with clocks and rods.

I responded because Otto almost made a relevant and coherent point.
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
2. Which though unanswerable via science = Science has no answers to the questions re: metaphysics. Therefore, attempts by science to explain metaphysics are illegitimate.


i'm sorry. i cant agree with this. just because science cant answer something now does not mean that it will REMAIN unanswerable. perhaps we are not asking the question correctly?
i am with djr on this one: give me an example of a question that is a metaphysical question - and cannot (now or in the future) be answered by science.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 10, 2013
So Sox - moving on from Noumenon's intent - I think that horse is dead - but answer me this.

You say "attempts by science to explain metaphysics are illegitimate."

Please define metaphysics for me - and give me an example of a question that is a metaphysical question - and cannot (now or in the future) be answered by science.

-djr

Science is unable to formulate an exact or legitimate explanation of all things metaphysical b/c M.P is not a hard science with an exact fit. It is mostly philosophical in nature and deals with such abstract concepts as being, knowing, thought, substance, cause, time and identity. Even love is a metaphysical emotion even though science explains it away as chemistry. There is much more to it than chemicals in the brain.

Examples: Where is Heaven? Who created God? What happened before the Big Bang? I will meet you yesterday. (Absurdity)
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2013
"I responded because Otto almost made a relevant and coherent point."

Ooooh - smackdown. Well Otto - you are obviously closer to my communication style that noumenon - I have no problem discerning the points you are making - I cannot say that for the last couple of posts from Noumenon. Is it because I am just not able to think at such an abstract level? I clearly prefer things to be more concrete - and more overt. I have a good picture of science in my head. It is looking at stuff, poking it to see what happens - and recording the data that comes out. Is it not real - because I am only forming a conceptualization of it in my brain? I don't know! - I am happy at the - poke it - and see what happens level of things.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2013
"Examples: Where is Heaven? Who created God? What happened before the Big Bang?"

I see no reason why science will not some day answer these questions. The first and second questions will almost surely turn out to be 'there is no such place, and there is no such being.' I think love is a physical phenomena that is easily answered by science. I think you are over complicating things.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
IMO, conceptualization is the only path between hard physical reality and the soft science of metaphysics. Hard science is always tempered by philosophy in the form of ideas and science takes those ideas as methods to provide legitimate answers to something.

Question: Am I making myself perfectly clear? (a metaphysical query)
rug
1.8 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
I have always thought of true hardcore scifi (not fantasy) as the "metaphysics" just to use a label of science.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 10, 2013
"Examples: Where is Heaven? Who created God? What happened before the Big Bang?"

I see no reason why science will not some day answer these questions. The first and second questions will almost surely turn out to be 'there is no such place, and there is no such being.' I think love is a physical phenomena that is easily answered by science. I think you are over complicating things.
-djr

'There is no such place' and 'there is no such being' is not a legitimately scientific answer b/c such answers don't provide hard evidence required nor does it explain the method whereby such answers were legitimately arrived at. Try again.

Example: What is a Soul and where does it live? (Please provide hard evidence.)

BAKOON
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2013
Where is the easter bunny and where does it live?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
I have always thought of true hardcore scifi (not fantasy) as the "metaphysics" just to use a label of science.
-rug

Here's another example: "Oh come on now, you're putting me on". (science or metaphysics?)
rug
1.5 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
No, really, I wasn't kidding. Good science fiction seems to predict possible future of science.
BAKOON
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2013
What is Santa Claus and where does he live?
Captain Stumpy
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2013
Example: What is a Soul and where does it live? (Please provide hard evidence.)


I did not see djr state unequivocally that there was "no such" anything, he stated "will almost surely turn out to be " ... this tells me that it is an opinion.
he DID state that :

I see no reason why science will not some day answer these questions


and this is something that I can totally agree with. give the astonishing leaps and bounds in not only technology but also in the rest of science, it is perfectly feasible to assume that in the future these questions may be answered. asking the questions now is moot.

but in the future..... I think it will be answered. just like djr said... you cannot state unequivocally that it will never be answered unless you know (from experience and empirical evidence) that there is no possible way to collect said data. then I will beg proof.
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 10, 2013
No, really, I wasn't kidding. Good science fiction seems to predict possible future of science.


Asimov and Star Trek have done a pretty bang up job to date...
djr
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2013
"Example: What is a Soul and where does it live?"

You have to provide evidence that there is such a thing as a soul first.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 11, 2013
you cannot state unequivocally that it will never be answered unless you know (from experience and empirical evidence) that there is no possible way to collect said data.


If you understand the scientific method and that it is not deductive but rather inductive, you could in fact unequivocally state that

Is it because I am just not able to think at such an abstract level?


Probably not, but rather you're willing to make me do all the heavy lifting,.. because science to you is omnipotent and thus a religion to be protected.

I have a good picture of science in my head. It is looking at stuff, poking it to see what happens - and recording the data that comes out. Is it not real - because I am only forming a conceptualization of it in my brain?


I never said scientific statements are not real. You have a good picture in your head also that counterfactuality, locality, simultaneity, and separability are likewise "real".
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 11, 2013
,... then why is it that they are proven false? Once you can understand why, it will help to understand my posts and those quotes above by the well known physicists.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Sep 11, 2013
"because science to you is omnipotent and thus a religion to be protected."

I have no idea what you might mean by 'science is omnipotent'. Science is certainly NOT a religion to be protected. However - I have made a choice. I can know things about the universe I live in through a couple of processes. One is an evidentiary system called science. The other is through faith. Close your eyes, make a wish, believe what ever feels good at the moment. I choose science. Science works. My cell phone works. Every time I call home - the phone rings, and my wife answers. Science allowed that to happen. It is not a god. That is a dumb accusation. But it definitely works. Religionists are destroying our world by fighting about which holy text is the right one. Scientists are advancing our knowledge of the universe. Again - I choose science.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
I have always thought of true hardcore scifi (not fantasy) as the "metaphysics" just to use a label of science.
-rug

Here's another example: "Oh come on now, you're putting me on". (science or metaphysics?)
-Obama_socks

No, really, I wasn't kidding. Good science fiction seems to predict possible future of science.
-rug

Please read my comment over again. If you were answering it, I was only using it as an example as a once popular phrase that may actually be metaphysical in nature, as well as Philosophical.
It was also directed at djr

But you are correct. Some technology that we see now came from ideas in good sci fi stories
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
contd
Note that I said "ideas". Ideas are derived from the philosophical as well as metaphysical. A 'good' idea is then transcended into the plane of reality where it is acted upon in the form of a science experiment; a science fiction novel; a new design for a ^$(#)$@*^$=%$*^; a plan for a new city...and any number of events or objects that have come out of an idea (thought).

Example: I want to volunteer to go to Mars." The first part ("I want to") is purely philosophical/metaphysical because it is a product of thought, and has no absolute scientific basis, as yet. Not until the remainder of the sentence is written or uttered ("volunteer to go to Mars") do we have a more or less complicated idea that can be acted upon by science within the realm of reality.

You go up to someone and say, "I want to". Without a qualifying objective that is known beforehand, the phrase will result in a blank stare from the other person.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
I have no idea what you might mean by 'science is omnipotent'. Science is certainly NOT a religion to be protected.


I didn't say that's what I think... I said that YOU must think that if you believe that science can in principal answer every legitimate question rational people can ask.

Recall we are talking about metaphysical questions like 'does god exist'. Such a question is incompatible with the scientific method, thus can not be answered nor refuted via science, even in principal.

It's great that you chose science and reject religion. Guess what, I do to. That wasn't the discussion. As I said above you can refute physical claims made by religion but not metaphysical ones.

For example as I said above there is a metaphysical pantheistic notion put forward by Spinoza that god is equated with the universe in its unconceptualized form. How then can you disprove this when everything is god. Or the view that god is incorporeal and so not observable?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
"Example: What is a Soul and where does it live?"

You have to provide evidence that there is such a thing as a soul first.
-djr

If there was already hard evidence for the existence of Soul and its abode, then the question would be rendered moot and not apply.

But there is no proof of its existence within the physical reaity and such proof will not be discovered by science due to the Soul's unphysical characteristics, and that is why the concept of Soul remains within Philosophy/Metaphysics because science cannot prove nor disprove its existence.
Hard science can consider the Soul's existence, however, as the concept, idea can be philosophized as a possibility, but only that.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 11, 2013
I want to volunteer to go to Mars.
-Obama_socks, Idiot

Please do :-)

Say hi to the giant glass martians for me.
djr
4.4 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2013
I said that YOU must think that if you believe that science can in principal answer every legitimate question rational people can ask.

And that is where we disagree - and I think we should leave it at that. I see no reason at all why science will not one day be able to answer all the questions of our universe, and any other universes that may be out there. Science is the accumulation of knowledge. Knowledge is patterns of data. We are doing a great job of interpreting many of those patterns. We are also developing AI - that will soon far surpass our level of processing - and take that data gathering and interpretation on a quantum leap. As long as you are not trying to introduce superstition and religion into the scientific debate - I think we can happily co-exist.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
Even if science can't answer some questions ultimately/precisely (due to some inherent indeterminacy in the universe) I'm double damn sure that belief or 'gut feeling' (which is basically the same thing) aren't anywhere near up to the task to get any further - or even close - to helping out.

In some processes we'll just have to live with statistical answers. Given that we only have a finite number of data points for any phenomenon all we ever have are just statistics. But those can be very good (and very useful).

Belief? No use there (unless you count "fooling yourself" as useful)
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
But there is no proof of its existence .

So it is a moot point - no point in even talking about it. If you want to have conversations about speculative things - that have no evidence for their existence - have at it - but that is not science.
freethinking
1 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
djr, if you ask an atheist what proof do they need to believe in God, many will answer there is no proof that they will accept.

As for scientists figuring everything thing out I find that a very bold assertion.
Take a simple creature such as a worm, it has been studied over a hundred years, by literally thousand scientists, yet more is to be discovered about it than what HAS been discovered.
Take a simple single cell, same thing.
Even a simple thing, a grain of sand, has been studied for hundreds of years by scientists and engineers, but more things are yet to be discovered than has been discovered.

It is nothing more than unfettered ego for anyone to believe that humans will ever scratch the surface of what can be known.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
Science - hard science, that is, is unable to determine the objective end result without first determining what is subjective, such as which input data is the one(s) that will most effectively result in validation of the objective end result. This is true of any discovery through experimentation, even if something is discovered by accident. The correct input must be present and the method can vary until such time that all the pieces of the puzzle come together to make a general consensus.
Artificial intel may be able to do this much faster than human intel. But artificial intel, unless it is programmed to accept data that includes the metaphysical as though it were as well defined as physical data, will probably not compute both data in the same manner. The M.P. data would have to be defined in such a way as to pass the artificial intel's perception criteria. It would be doable.

m(@L@)m
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
But there is no proof of its existence .

So it is a moot point - no point in even talking about it. If you want to have conversations about speculative things - that have no evidence for their existence - have at it - but that is not science.
-djr

So I think it is safe to assume that your opinion is that if you can't hear, see, touch, smell and taste something, or detect it with infrared and x-ray technology, which will ultimately require the use of the same senses from a human standpoint, then it can't possibly exist and is not worth it for science to explore the possibility of its existence? That is a very narrow-minded view.
But in your own words, you have conceded that there are certain things like God that cannot be detected by science. That is why Philosophy and Metaphysics are "soft" sciences and the really big questions cannot be answered by mainstream science due to hidden factors that require belief and faith. Science cannot answer everything, it seems.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 11, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, Christian Jihadi

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
djr
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2013
Sox - "it can't possibly exist and is not worth it for science to explore the possibility of its existence? That is a very narrow-minded view."

It is not narrow minded to have an evidentiary based system of thinking. In my opinion - it is the thinking of the superstitious that deserves derision. If you cannot see it, touch it, etc. how can you know if it exists or not? I know - you read an old book - and believe everything that is written in it. I will opt for an evidentiary based system of thought. And perhaps one day we will travel to other universes - and meet the beings that created ours. Or perhaps not. Either way - if I can't see it, or touch it etc. - it effectively does not exist.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
If you cannot see it, touch it, etc. how can you know if it exists or not?


Does gravity exist? You can't see it or touch it.
No one really knows what it is, only what it does.

""how does 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' differ from 'ether'? Is it just a place-holder for what we don't know?"

Jake, who is a good friend (and allows me to get away with these sorts of shenanigans), replied, nonchalantly, "Yes.""
"Science has indeed accomplished great things, but it will not -- and most importantly cannot -- solve all of humanity's problems."
http://www.realcl...660.html
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2013
If you cannot see it, touch it, etc. how can you know if it exists or not?

What is life?
Can you see it? Touch it?
One must first BE alive to see or touch.
How does life begin?
One instant something IS alive and the next it is not. Where did the life go?
JohnGee
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2013
One instant something IS alive and the next it is not. Where did the life go?
Umm this is anything but true.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
@djr
Again you are in error in equating superstition with belief and faith in a Supreme Being. I happen to agree that superstition deserves privately held derision for the simple reason that I am not superstitious, but I am tolerant of those who are in any case. You may need to look up the definition of superstition so that you will be better able to discern the differences.

I assume that by your heavy dependence on your 5 senses you assume that human evolution regarding those senses is complete and no other changes will ever come about that will possibly take humans to a higher plane of perceptions/conceptualization. If that is the case, then it explains your narrow view of anything which your 5 senses cannot fathom.

I will always reserve the right to explore that which is inapplicable to physical reality. To not do so would render myself as a closed minded individual, and for me, that would be intolerable.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
LOL...there is nothing evil or false about what I said regarding what happens to evil people's Soul when they die. Of course, the Souls of all evil people remain in their body after death, and the Soul can FEEL all the pain and agony of his/her rotting corpse which is in the process of breaking down into its atoms and going back to the dirt. This is a normal process because the evil person condemns himself while alive.

If you don't believe, then ignore what I've said. It doesn't make any difference to me. You can plaster my comment all over the internet for all I care. You condemn your Soul to a dark Hell while you await Judgment.
-Obama_socks, Superstitious Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...y.html#j

Some religious people aren't idiots. Your religious beliefs, Obama_socks, are complete superstitious idiocy and evil.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2013
@djr
FYI...Belief and faith in a Supreme Being is not included in the superstitious category of ghosts, witches, elves, unicorns, Eastern bunny, finding a 4-leaf clover, etc. Nor is it included with throwing salt over your left shoulder; avoid walking under a ladder; kissing a frog; avoid stepping on a crack in the sidewalk; etc.

But it does fall under the category of Divine intervention and the hope of prayers answered, which has nothing to do with superstition.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2013
ghosts, witches, elves, unicorns, Eastern bunny, finding a 4-leaf clover, etc.
But you've said you believe in ghosts. Demons belong on that list too.

You are an evil idiot.

I think Otto might be right about Obama_socks being a woman.
http://www.youtub...mMUAHZcQ
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2013
"Does gravity exist? You can't see it or touch it."

God Rygg is such a waste of time. Yes you can conclusively demonstrate the existence of gravity. If I drop an object - it falls to the ground - every single time. Stop taking things so literally. I was simply taking Sox's own words. If you don't know what at evidentiary based system of thinking is - you are wasting all of our time on a science site. Please tell us - if you do not use evidence for the determination of reality - what do you use?????
djr
4.3 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2013
Sox: "Again you are in error in equating superstition with belief and faith in a Supreme Being."

No I am not. You have to have some way of deciding what is reality. You can use an evidentiary system of exploring reality - or you can use a superstitious one. You can call it fath, or belief, or superstition - it all means the same thing - suspending the need for evidence - and believing what ever you want - with no basis for that belief. Now - let's suspend this never ending trip down the rabbit hole. I will have my way of thinking - call it science, or evidence based, or rationalism, and you guys can have yours - call it non science, or superstition, or faith, or what every you want. I can ask one question that shows what idiocy your system is. How do decide which is the true religion? - is God A the true god, or God B? How do you KNOW?
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
How do you KNOW?

Obama_socks' SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS gives him the illusion of knowledge. Really what happens is his evil thoughts manifest themselves as received knowledge because he is a SCHIZOPHRENIC.

We will all be 6 feet under by or before 2113. But if you really don't like my suggestion for a new kind of spaceship, I will not draw up the design and work out the plans for it to be built in the future before the Sun explodes.
Obama_socks, Delusional SCHIZOPHRENIC

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
Sox: "Again you are in error in equating superstition with belief and faith in a Supreme Being."

No I am not. You have to have some way of deciding what is reality. You can use an evidentiary system of exploring reality - or you can use a superstitious one. You can call it fath, or belief, or superstition - it all means the same thing - suspending the need for evidence - and believing what ever you want - with no basis for that belief. I can ask one question that shows what idiocy your system is. How do decide which is the true religion? - is God A the true god, or God B? How do you KNOW?
-djr

Yes you are. You insist on the term "superstition" to describe belief in God, but your description fails b/c the term, if you bother to look it up, means something entirely different. Superstition is the FEAR of gods and has nothing to do with love and faith, just belief and fear. You prove your intolerance by calling it idiocy. Your question "how do you know" makes no sense.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
Perhaps you believe that Christians believe in more than one God, which is why you ask the question about godA or godB. If you were raised in another culture where the people believe in godA and godB, it then makes your question more understandable. But if you were raised in a Christian or Jewish home, then you would know the answer to your question already.
Nobody is attempting to convert you to Christianity. Nobody really gives a damn what you believe in. But your equating the belief and faith in God with superstitious nonsense shows that you are not completely dependent on your 5 senses, but also in your own superstition regarding religion of Christianity.

IOW, you have made up your mind that anything, any belief that runs counter to your own has to be wrong...without being able to prove it wrong.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2013
That's not what he meant idiot-shit and you know it.

He's saying you are an arrogant asshole for believing you know how the universe works despite being a complete moron.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
@djr
Oh BTW...my friends and I have been monitoring the time schedules for BAKOON/BABOON and Theghostofotto1923 as to when one user name makes a comment then stops and switches to the other user name, and the other one starts commenting and then stops and switches back. Each one's time schedule shows that both are on at different times even if in the same thread which involves a lot of switching names back and forth.

That's further proof that Theghostofotto1923 and BAKOON are the same person. LOL
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
ooops...gave away another secret...sorry guys
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
The only person who is dumb enough to believe you that I'm Otto is Estevan57 and he's probably your sockpuppet anyway.

Cells that God created would have had neurons, unlike the lack of functioning neurons in Blotto's brain.
Obama_socks, Stupid Idiot-shit

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
my friends and I

ooops...gave away another secret...sorry guys

My psychologist friend from Kenya says these quotes are definitive proof that Obama_socks has MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER.

Obama_socks even disagrees with himself on certain topics with Captain Stumpy. My friend says this is common in MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER and Obama_socks needs to be permanently institutionalized. My friend says he may all ready be, and that his asylum has a liberal internet policy. My friends are tracking down the asylum now and we will ask to have his privileges revoked.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
Nope...everyone believes me. BAKOON IS THEGHOSTOFOTTO1923. It has been established already by 25 people.

Go take your meds, Blotto/BAKOON. You are starting to panic.

Your Black psychiatrist friend is right. You DO need to be institutionalized.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
You have 25 personalities all ready? Wow you really are sick. And my friend isn't black, racist.

You better hide. It's time for your electroshock therapy and the nurse is coming to get you.

LOL hahaha
(snort)
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
Everyone knows that Theghostofotto1923/BAKOON came in this thread to disrupt the discussion and try to stop me from commenting, as it has done since it started accusing me of being Pussycat_Eyes, the lady who is pregnant with her second child and who had to change her user name to avoid further persecution in this site from Theghostofotto1923 and its sockpuppet, FrankHerbert.

It's sad how this Physorg has sunk so low with the help of Theghostofotto1923 and its many sockpuppets. Really sad.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, Enormous Moron

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
djr
4 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2013
Sox - no I am not - here is a definition for you right out of Wiki,

"Superstition is a pejorative term for belief in supernatural causality: ... such as astrology, religion, omens,..."

Bakoon understood what I meant with the question about God A, and God B. I will try again - I will bring it down to your level.

In the world there are many religions. Examples are - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shamanism, etc. Many of these religions have a supreme being called God. Yahweh, Shiva, Allah, Zeus, etc. Because religion does not use a rational (evidence based) thought system for selecting what is real - the choice of which religion, or which God is the true god is very arbitrary. If you ask a Christian - 'why should I believe in your God' - they will likely tell you - you must take it on faith. If you stand outside of the influence of all religions (become an atheist) - you can then see the idiocy religion - by looking at the question - 'how do I choose a god?'[
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
My 25 friends...and they are all reading the comments in this thread right now. So keep up your lies, Blotto. You can't fool all of the people all of the time, except for those who WANT to be fooled.

Eventually, enough people will get fed up with Theghostofotto1923's sockpuppetry and PRESS THE REPORT BUTTON to have him banned.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2013
Oh BTW...my friends and I have been monitoring the time schedules for BAKOON/BABOON and Theghostofotto1923

What a sad existence - nothing better to do with your time than to monitor the internet activity of other people - now you went and made me sad.....
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
I guess it is easy for 25 people to read this when they all share the same set of eyes. LOL

The report button isn't keeping you from posting idiot-shit. I'm not going anywhere :-)
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
@djr
I have said much earlier in this thread that I do not belong to any ORGANIZED RELIGION and that I have a one-on-one relationship with God the Creator. Notice that I describe my God as THE CREATOR. This means that HE was first on the Earth because HE CREATED the Earth. All your gods that you mentioned came long after when man had lost his place in immortality.
For you to ask which god this and which god that is stupid. There is only ONE true God. Since you don't choose to recognize the one true God, that must be your final decision.
I am not on this Earth to convert you to my belief and you are not here to convince me of the "benefits" of atheism. You will not live forever and someday, you will know.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
LOL everybody. Just read the above post and tell me this jerk isn't an evil idiot. Go away moron!
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
25 others, djr...not me
hmmm...I''m starting to wonder now if maybe YOU are another sockpuppet of Theghostofotto1923. You seem very partial to it.
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
Obama_socks even disagrees with himself on certain topics with Captain Stumpy..


are we really back to this, Bakoon?
I am NOT Obama_Socks...
if you will notice, we don't agree on a lot of things... and we also have different syntax and writing styles. even the best MPD will have syntax similarities that carry over into conversation, especially written. do the math... I have also given both good and bad votes to Socks, why would Socks down-vote himself at all? especially when we know that you, open, toot, VendicarH, Dalriada, Father Brrenk and Colombe will do it anyway...
just like I have given you up-votes when you make sense (which you have, once or twice).
pull your freakin head out, man... NOT SOCKS.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2013
Sox: "25 others, djr...not me"

I could have sworn it said 'my friends and I' - look at the last word in that sentence...

Yes - yes - I was correct - it definitely said 'my friends and I' Looky - here is the quote -

'Oh BTW...my friends and I have been monitoring the time schedules for BAKOON/BABOON and Theghostofotto1923'

I understand - it is hard keeping it all straight - when you are juggling 25 sock puppets.
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
Oh BTW...my friends and I have been monitoring the time schedules for BAKOON/BABOON and Theghostofotto1923

What a sad existence - nothing better to do with your time than to monitor the internet activity of other people - now you went and made me sad.....


I dont think Bakoon is Otto, IMHO.
Otto can be quite brilliant at times, and can use a logical and rational argument to others. Bakoon usually does not do anything but attack Socks, and me sometimes, and others he thinks are sock puppets. this is the bulk of what i see from Bakoon.
Bakoon also usually resorts to name calling very early. does not usually use logic much. and has seldom actually given a good whack at a decent discussion in the thread (from what i have seen, again)
I am just not sure.......... get me BAKOON s IP address, and Otto, and I will know for sure
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
I haven't voted in years except for once this week for one of the scientists where I gave him a 5.

Stumpy, BAKOON/Theghostofotto1923 is desperate to get me to slink away from this Physorg because it has obvious mental problems where it cannot stand any kind of competition and uses its sockpuppets to try to persecute people. This is demonic possession, not just insanity.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
Sox: "25 others, djr...not me"

I could have sworn it said 'my friends and I' - look at the last word in that sentence...

Yes - yes - I was correct - it definitely said 'my friends and I' Looky - here is the quote -

'Oh BTW...my friends and I have been monitoring the time schedules for BAKOON/BABOON and Theghostofotto1923'

I understand - it is hard keeping it all straight - when you are juggling 25 sock puppets.
-djr

LOL...of course my 25 friends on Physorg are 25 others...which means that 25 separate individual members of this site have been monitoring the time schedules of Blotto and his sockpuppet. They have the proof that Blotto changes names back and forth very often. Sometimes Blotto is using the name Bakoon and Theghostofotto's name doesn't show up in the same time slot...and vice versa. Only a fool wouldn't understand that Blotto is up to his game again.
Captain Stumpy
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
@Socks
For you to ask which god this and which god that is stupid. There is only ONE true God. Since you don't choose to recognize the one true God, that must be your final decision.


and herein lies the fallacy of religion... this is what i think djr meant from what i can understand... what gives "your one god and creator" and precedent over, say, the Lakota, or the jehova's witnesses, or even the M'Butu?
religions differ because of culture, and were designed for a purpose. control. therefor religion is perfect for controlling people but not for science.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
Well, I need some sleep. Busy day ahead. Goodnight, Stumpy
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2013
From archeology to theology. Looks like fun. Cover me boys, I'm diving in...

In a way, it is possible we are all gods. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, it's suggested objective reality may not exist, except that it is observed. Therefore our mere act of existing perpetuates reality.

So, extrapolating from that, we can hypothesize the quantum soup devised consciousness that it may become real. Or, we can wonder if we're real at all, ourselves...

I think, therefore I am, but I'm not so sure about anyone else...

Do I create you by my observation that I'm real? Or have you created me by your mere observation of these words?

I love this stuff. All kinds of fun questions, improbably weird possibilities, and no concrete answers. Maybe it's true after all... perhaps God works in more mysterious ways than we can possibly understand...

Cue: spooky music...

fade out.......

Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
bakoon - notice the timestamps on the posts.
unless you are running multiple systems at the same time this should indicate that Socks and I are not the same person
we would also have to have scripted cut and paste replies in syntactically different ways . and we are posting instantly.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
Darn...you just had to say that.
OK...since I don't belong to any religion...I am not involved with all the trappings of all those religions. Remember I said one on one IN PRIVATE?
All religions have some good things to offer...and some bad such as Islam. But djr is right...there are so many to choose from. Because of that, I don't choose any...but that doesn't mean that my faith in God is shaken because of millions of religions out there. To me, it's just not important as it is to atheists. THEY are the ones who worry and fret over who believes in what...I don't
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
OK Ubavon....I will leave you and Stumpy to duke it out with djr and Blotto's sockpuppet, Baboon
good night
BAKOON
1.6 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2013
Okay, so Obama_makes sense until the line.
I don't belong to any religion
I am not involved with all the trappings of all those religions.
Remember I said one on one IN PRIVATE?
there are so many to choose from. Because of that, I don't choose any
________
but that doesn't mean that my faith in God is shaken because of millions of religions out there
If he spoke of a generic deity in the deist or pantheist sense, I wouldn't have a problem with this. However, it is so very obvious that is not the case. Obama_socks SPECIFICALLY makes the case for "God", Yahweh/Jehova/JHVH, the god of Abraham and the Bible. Obama_socks believes in the divinity of Jesus/Yeshua and he believes in hell (to the point of a revenge fantasy).

None of that can be true about someone who doesn't belong to a religion. He is most certainly a Christian of the worst kind, the dishonest type.
[ATHEISTS]... fret over who believes in what...I don't
Your idiot hell rant says otherwise.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2013
Here's a question:
Why is it that in these articles the religious come out of the woodwork? What are they even doing on a science site? It certainly can't be for the science. I'mean: even th pseudo-science cranks have more of a reason to be here than anyone religious. Aren't there any religious sites out there?

So what is it? Are they getting paid by the post to try and dumb down everyone to their level?
rug
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
So what is it? Are they getting paid by the post to try and dumb down everyone to their level?

Now that is an interesting thought.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2013
Why is it that in these articles the religious come out of the woodwork? What are they even doing on a science site?
You know the answers. They are all most eager to tell us how their god is responsible for everything, how science confirms the existance of their god, how mainstream science is evil, etcetc. They love spreading the good word. Rejoice! He is risen! Hosanna! Be giddy like me! Etc.
Aren't there any religious sites out there?
No fun preaching to the choir.
Well, I need some sleep
No you need some thorazine and inpatient care I think Exhibit A:
LOL...of course my 25 friends on Physorg are 25 others...which means that 25 separate individual members of this site have been monitoring the time schedules of Blotto and his sockpuppet
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2013
Say... are these your friends from your secret club? You know, the Other Physorg which was created specially for you and your very excellent professional friends in science, politics, economics, and prison? You know, for use when you couldnt all get together in your treehouse?

"Either PM or discussing topics in The Other Physorg. IF you have lost or misplaced your The Other Physorg password, I will provide you with the current PW, but ONLY if your User name tallies with the list in my possession of Other Physorg member names. Please keep in mind that I can ONLY help you with the first Community PW. The second and third passwords are YOUR responsibility... Also, please do NOT forget to observe and vet each and any potential member BEFORE you invite them to join our The Other Physorg groups." -etc. From your profile page.

-My god you are sick.
he is a liar and/or a fool.
God the incompetent liar. No wonder pussytard worships it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2013
I am NOT Obama_Socks...
Sorry stumpy but the evidence looks pretty suspicious... You make a big effort to eliminate capitals, punctuation, paragraphs in your posts. And that cartoon persona of yours...

"i am a mountain man. i lived with a pack of wolves for a few years (7). i am an unrepentant bibliophile. retired from the military. did 4 years as a NASA subcontractor (Firefighter- Orbiter rescue). I am also a retired Truck Captain and paramedic Firefighter."

-And your shameless suckuptitude:
Otto can be quite brilliant at times


-This has the signature of the idiot pussytard written all over it. Perhaps Im wrong but you must admit that it does look bad...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2013
For example as I said above there is a metaphysical pantheistic notion put forward by Spinoza that god is equated with the universe in its unconceptualized form. How then can you disprove this when everything is god. Or the view that god is incorporeal and so not observable?
See that? Philo gods are unresolvable, undefinable using real words, and therefore perpetual. And they come attached to lots of dead philos for effect. You can read their books but one hour later you are hungry again.

Religious gods all describe events in their books which science has proven did not happen. And so THOSE gods arent real.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2013
OH, GAME ON MOTHER FUCKER.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2013
ahaahaaaa I told you xians make great martyrs
dtxx
1.2 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
ahaahaaaa I told you xians make great martyrs


Especially the wounded veterans who defended themselves from the persecution and attempted genocide of atheists during the War on Christmas.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2013
-This has the signature of the idiot pussytard written all over it. Perhaps Im wrong but you must admit that it does look bad...


otto
perhaps to you, but I speak my mind. and I speak my opinion. I am not afraid to tell someone when they screw up, neither am I afraid to say when I think they are right.
and as for my "profile page" ... it is as accurate as I can be without giving away too much personal information. I am usually a pretty private person. i'm retired and trying to learn new things, and personally, I don't give a shit whether you think I am Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny... so far, almost everyone is blamed of being a puppet. I thought it might clarify things. I guess not...
i am going to have my say regardless.
you are going to argue regardless.
sometimes we will agree, sometimes we will not agree.

Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2013
and as for the remarks i make, i do stand by them. i rather thought your arguments against gun control were spot-on. i also think religion has no place in science.

but i have never lied. i have one log in, THIS one. the profile is accurate, and i actually resemble the man in the pic, which was why i chose it. the nearest power line to my house is over a mile away, and after leaving pavement i travel 13 miles of dirt road, crossing 4 creeks before getting to my half mile long driveway. and i have lots of time to travel... so i am willing to meet in person. given time.
and there is only 5 pictures of me that i have ever let get published on-line, that i know of, and one was while i worked with the EPA and Section 319 Non-point Source for the state i live in... other than that, you will not find pics, not even on facebook, because i don't associate publicly much anymore, i mostly just consult, when needed, under my birth name.
so... gripe away. i fear no man nor beast.
DarkHorse66
2.2 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2013
Hey guys. This is novel. (I've never seen THIS before) Check out obama socks' new rater. I think a real moderator just woke up from hibernation. Somehow I don't think that a troll is capable of giving a negative score. Out of sheer interest and curiosity, I've been watching OS's activity page. Apart from a couple of standalone (-1's), I saw a 1 appear, courtesy of 'open'. Some minutes later, that score changed to a (-1) when 'moderator' made their addition. Maybe they can just type numbers into a box....
Cheers, DH66
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2013
Why did I show Rugs vile rant? Because he is a typical Progressive just like VD. While Progressives claim tolerance and claim conservatives and Christians are full of hate when you lift the Progressive veil you see raw hatred and anger.

If Progressives would love life, love honor, and love truth more than they love hate and deceit, the world would be a much better place.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2013
Why did I show Rugs vile rant? Because he is a typical Progressive just like VD. While Progressives claim tolerance and claim conservatives and Christians are full of hate when you lift the Progressive veil you see raw hatred and anger.

If Progressives would love life, love honor, and love truth more than they love hate and deceit, the world would be a much better place.

""We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."
― Golda Meir"
So that's why 'progressives' are so sympathetic to Muslim terrorists.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Sep 14, 2013
Why is the main stream media so Obama and Progressive friendly, why do they not report truthfully about Obama....Why do they try and destroy conservatives? Because not only are they overwhelmingly Progressives (and hence they have no issues of lying, threatening, cheating, while accusing others of the same), they get jobs from Obama.

http://www.breitb...stration

If you are a Progressive and you are in the media, you are untrustworthy
-free

http://www.breitb...ia-black

"If you are wondering where anti-war Hollywood has been as Obama proves he's not Bush, but only by rushing into a Middle East war with no international coalition and United Nations backing, Ed Asner has the explanation: "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama," Asner explained to the Hollywood Reporter."

Ed Asner is one of the Liberals in Hollywood.

More news stories

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.