The conflict between science and religion lies in our brains, researchers say

March 23, 2016, Case Western Reserve University
Credit: Petr Kratochvil/Public Domain

The conflict between science and religion may have its origins in the structure of our brains, researchers at Case Western Reserve University and Babson College have found.

Clashes between the use of faith vs. to explain the world around us dates back centuries and is perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.

To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for and engage the empathetic network, the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite.

"When there's a question of faith, from the analytic point of view, it may seem absurd," said Tony Jack, who led the research. "But, from what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight."

Jack is an associate professor of philosophy at Case Western Reserve and research director of the university's Inamori International Center of Ethics and Excellence, which helped sponsor the research.

"A stream of research in cognitive psychology has shown and claims that people who have faith (i.e., are religious or spiritual) are not as smart as others. They actually might claim they are less intelligent.," said Richard Boyatzis, distinguished university professor and professor of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve, and a member of Jack's team.

"Our studies confirmed that statistical relationship, but at the same time showed that people with faith are more prosocial and empathic," he said.

In a series of eight experiments, the researchers found the more empathetic the person, the more likely he or she is religious.

That finding offers a new explanation for past research showing women tend to hold more religious or spiritual worldviews than men. The gap may be because women have a stronger tendency toward empathetic concern than men.

Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.

The new study is published in the online journal PLOS ONE. The other authors are Jared Friedman, a research assistant and recent graduate in Philosophy and Cognitive Science who will begin his PhD in organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve in the fall, and Scott Taylor, assistant professor of at Babson College.

Brain structure

The research is based on the hypothesis that the human brain has two opposing domains in constant tension. In earlier , Jack 's Brain, Mind & Consciousness lab used functional magnetic resonance imaging to show the brain has an analytical network of neurons that enables us to think critically and a social network that enables us to empathize. When presented with a physics problem or ethical dilemma, a healthy brain fires up the appropriate network while suppressing the other.

"Because of the tension between networks, pushing aside a naturalistic world view enables you to delve deeper into the social/emotional side," Jack explained. "And that may be the key to why beliefs in the supernatural exist throughout the history of cultures. It appeals to an essentially nonmaterial way of understanding the world and our place in it."

Friedman said, "Having empathy doesn't mean you necessarily have anti-scientific beliefs. Instead, our results suggest that if we only emphasize analytic reasoning and scientific beliefs, as the New Atheist movement suggests, then we are compromising our ability to cultivate a different type of thinking, namely social/moral insight."

"These findings," Friedman continued, "are consistent with the philosophical view, espoused by (Immanuel) Kant, according to which there are two distinct types of truth: empirical and moral."

Experiments and results

The researchers examined the relationship between belief in God or a universal spirit with measures of analytic thinking and moral concern in eight different experiments, each involving 159 to 527 adults. Consistently through all eight, the more religious the person, the more moral concern they showed. But no cause and effect was established.

They found that both spiritual belief and empathic concern were positively associated with frequency of prayer, meditations and other spiritual or religious practices, but neither were predicted by church dinners or other social contact associated with religious affiliation.

While others theorize that mentalizing—interpreting human behavior in terms of intentional mental states such as needs, desires or purposes—has a positive association with belief, the researchers found none.

Like other studies, these experiments showed that analytic thinking discourages acceptance of spiritual or religious beliefs. But the statistical analysis of data pooled from all eight experiments indicates empathy is more important to religious belief than analytic thinking is for disbelief.

So why can the conflict between science and religion become so strong?

"Because the networks suppress each other, they may create two extremes," Boyatzis said. "Recognizing that this is how the brain operates, maybe we can create more reason and balance in the national conversations involving science and religion."

Using both networks

The researchers say humans are built to engage and explore using both networks.

"Far from always conflicting with science, under the right circumstances religious belief may positively promote scientific creativity and insight," Jack said. "Many of history's most famous scientists were spiritual or religious. Those noted individuals were intellectually sophisticated enough to see that there is no need for religion and science to come into conflict."

They refer to Baruch Aba Shalev's book 100 years of Nobel Prizes, which found that, from 1901 to 2000, 654 Nobel laureates, or nearly 90 percent, belonged to one of 28 religions. The remaining 10.5 percent were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers.

"You can be religious and be a very good scientist," Jack said.

The researchers agree with the New Atheists that suspension of analytical thinking—at the wrong time—can be dangerous, and point to the historical use of religious differences to persecute or fight wars.

"Although it is simply a distortion of history to pin all conflict on religion," Jack said. "Non-religious political movements, such as fascism and communism, and quasi-scientific movements, such as eugenics, have also done great harm."

The researchers suggest, however, that taking a carefully considered leap of religious faith appears be an effective route to promoting emotional insight. Theirs and other studies find that, overall, religious belief is associated with greater compassion, greater social inclusiveness and greater motivation to engage in pro-social actions.

Jack said the conflict can be avoided by remembering simple rules: "Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives."

To dig deeper into belief, the researchers are planning studies to learn if individuals who increase their empathy then increase their religious or spiritual belief, or vice versa.

Explore further: Belief in God strengthened by imagining how life would be different

Related Stories

Do brain connections help shape religious beliefs?

January 27, 2014

Building on previous evidence showing that religious belief involves cognitive activity that can be mapped to specific brain regions, a new study has found that causal, directional connections between these brain networks ...

Religious New Zealanders most tolerant of Muslims

March 10, 2016

New Zealanders are highly accepting of religious diversity, yet some groups are the targets of more prejudice than others, researchers at Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Auckland have found.

Recommended for you

281 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

betterexists
2.4 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2016
WRONG!
EVERYONE Starts with Religion BECAUSE Female Parent & Almost ALL Around are Religious.
As People grow up, their Intelligence Swells & They Start Kicking God OUT...Out & Out unlike The Stupids!
Just GO To Prisons & Do the Survey. 99.99% DO BELIEVE IN God!
PhysicsMatter
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2016
Here is some food for thought as far as Science vs. Religion debate is concerned.

https://contraria...chotomy/
Azrael
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2016
This makes a good deal of sense, and I'm happy to see the comment section has yet to explode with both sides professing their superiority and bashing each other.

Faith and Science both have their merits, and their assumed mutual-exclusivity by people with extreme views on either side is a falsehood.
twright4
4.5 / 5 (20) Mar 23, 2016
"Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives."

To me, this is not precisely in error, but neither is it factual. More and more through neuroscience and evolutionary biology we are finding that science has the clearest sets of frameworks as to both how and why we find meaning in our lives.

I did enjoy the equating of a full lack of empathy found in sociopathy/psychopathy and atheism. That is simply stretching the continuum to an absurd degree.

It may come as a shock to some that the researchers did find correlates between intelligence scales and levels of irrational beliefs. I have always been on the analytical side of the spectrum. That in no way conveys to me any sense of intellectual superiority. I have sundry blind spots :)
rderkis
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 23, 2016
How can anyones NON-belief in god be based on science? Correct me if I am wrong here, but science knows probably less than 1% of the universe. Science knows nothing about dark mater, nor dark energy. And that's about 95% of the universe. Of the last 5%, I doubt we know more than 5% of that 5%.
Heck :-), we only recently discovered a new planet in our solar system.
As far as using logic to repute the existence of God, what does your logic tell you about quantum entanglement? (Objects influencing each other across universe instantly(Magic?).)
Science can no more refute the existence of God than a ant in the Amazon rain forest can dispute the existence of humans, he has never seen.
You can usually tell whether a person has any idea of what their talking about by the way they use words like stupid, dumb, silly etc. Intelligent people don't use those words in a debate. It automatically makes it so the person their debating quits listening and the audience thinks your eccentric.
kochevnik
4.1 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2016
Yes more correlation studies. The same can be used to prove ice cream sales "cause' global warming

Beliefs in the study are conflated to be empathetic, yet beliefs are animal thinking. Should wolves and bears and wolverines be deemed empaths because they do what they believe?
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2016
I've more faith in science than in faith.
Zzzzzzzz
3.5 / 5 (33) Mar 23, 2016
"But, from what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight."

I'd say that statement is being VERY kind.......
Zzzzzzzz
3 / 5 (29) Mar 23, 2016
"How can anyones NON-belief in god be based on science? Correct me if I am wrong here, but science knows probably less than 1% of the universe....."

Sorry, rderkis, your request for correction in far from genuine. You are delusional. Delusions do not hold up well at all under the light of day, logic, reason, or any other examination. Therefore they require vigorous defense, and constant validation. Your post screams out the desperate need you have to defend and validate your delusion, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with any quest for knowledge on your part. Stop your lying.
By the way congratulations. You are the first poster on here that made my ignore list with one post.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (19) Mar 23, 2016
Obviously there is something wrong here. If the research was true Scandinavia would be a nation of genius psychopaths, but these nations are quite normal in both respects. (Statistics on psychopathy are hard to come by, but the UK average is half the more religious US. And Scandinavian nations are known for their generosity, despite having more non-believers than believers.)

The cause for the studies's problems seems to be a) too small sample size and b) using fMRI which is fraught with problems. And the researchers are obviously accommodationist (since they don't agree with moral utilitarianism on a science basis), so that contributes to publishing crap.

Now that religiosity correlates with lower intelligence is a result that pops up every time this is looked at, so that I accept.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2016
@rderkis: "How can anyones NON-belief in god be based on science?"

How can it not, when non-religion is usually based on experience? Religion is a superstition that claims there is magic, non-natural action. (As your own comment exemplifies then it tries to conjure up an unobserved entity by religious booga-wooga.)

Besides being obviously ludicrous, i would mean that sciences starting with thermodynamics (that can look at an entire system) would be wrong. So science tests magic every day, and magic fails every da, including religious magic.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2016
[ctd]

"Correct me if I am wrong here, but science knows probably less than 1% of the universe."

You are both trying to hide religion from criticism and wrong, We know about the entire energy content of the universe since a decade back and we know some of the constraints of the exotic physics (inflation, dark matter, dark energy, black holes).

As for our everyday physics, the physics that concerns us, we now know the Core Theory (sensu Wilczek) completely: http://blogs.disc...erstood/ .

"Science can no more refute the existence of [magic entity]".

Your baseless and as seen above erroneous theological claim is noted.
rderkis
1.5 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2016
torbjorn_b_g_larsson

Quote - How can it not, when non-religion is usually based on experience? Religion is a superstition that

Vary good reply! You sound intelligent versus some of the others that use words like "lying, scream, ignore etc"
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.9 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2016
@PM: The accommodationist text has the usual problem of denying the near 100 % overlap in practice (ask the religious!), which in this case goes back to claiming that science is "faith" based.

It is not, it is based on tests and therefore trust. That is why the Core Theory is robust. (See my previous comment for a run down, Carroll has a later text where he describes the CT in Wilczek's terms.)
rderkis
1 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2016
Quote "As for our everyday physics, the physics that concerns us, we now know the Core Theory"

I am not sure you can KNOW core theory. The vary use of the word theory suggests that it is not known for sure, nor is it a proven fact.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2016
I think it has more to do with the type of answers being sought. Theists/Deists tend to ask 'why', while science can only provide 'how'.

Newton wrote more on theology than he did on science, and I don't think this was in any way inconsistent. He sought different answers and used appropriate methods of thought/belief. There are legitimate questions that science can not answer at any given era, and some never.

For example, the idea of an existential creator is not an arbitrary one. It is a legitimate and rational one that manifested in many parts of the planet independently.

Atheists who base their non-belief in god in 'lack of scientific evidence' tend to ironically, place too much faith in science,... that such questions are amendable to scientific investigation such that they can make such an assertions. Theists who site evidence are as bad, but no worse.

The logical stance imo, is agnosticism.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2016
So, how does this study explain this guy?
https://en.wikipe...emaître

PS: Never mind, I finally got to the end of the article after posting.
mrburns
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2016
At last a study proving Newton, leibniz, poincare, descartes, gauss and einstein were not very bright .
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2016
At last a study proving Newton, leibniz, poincare, descartes, gauss and einstein were not very bright .

Ahhh.... sarcasm....
javjav
2.3 / 5 (15) Mar 23, 2016
rderkis you don't have to worry, religion and science are interested in different things. Religion is interested in the "Creation by God", which according to Genesis & Bible it happened 13000 years ago. Meanwhile science is interested in something that happened 13800 million years before that. So please don't opinate about Big Bang and we will not opinate about the Bible, and everybody happy.
jeffreyjoemiller
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2016
Unconscious bias runs thick in these researchers' conclusions.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2016
ISIS is just a group of misunderstood empaths /s
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2016
"Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives."

I don't buy this. Particularly, I don't buy the statement that ethics can't determine what's ethical. Morals are what someone told you is right and wrong; ethics are what you figured out for yourself. That's what ethics is *for*.
LauraKatrin
3.8 / 5 (27) Mar 23, 2016
Here is the problem I have with this… Empathy and morals do NOT come from religion/spirituality/faith. It comes from being a good, honest person. You don't have to believe in a 'higher power' or 'creator' to have morals, insight or purpose. Some (not all) of the most religious people I know are the worst people I have ever come across. They are bias and don't care about others, just their own indulgences. I fail to see where that is empathy. The people I know who are most caring, companionate, go out of their way to help others even at disadvantage to themselves, have no religion to 'guide' them.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2016
The vary use of the word theory suggests that it is not known for sure, nor is it a proven fact
@rderkis
you are using a colloquial definition whereas the scientific method has a clear distinct meaning for the word "theory". here is a good definition with references for you to peruse: https://en.wikipe...c_theory

.

Here is the problem I have with this… Empathy and morals do NOT come from religion/spirituality/faith
@LauraKatrin
I am totally in agreement with you on this one. In fact, recent studies indicate our "morality" and "altruistic" behaviour may well be emergent from social interactions and group dynamics

read about altruism in animals:
http://www.livesc...ent.html

http://www.annual...de=psych

see also: "Cooperation among animals" or "an evolutionary perspective" by Dugatkin, L.A.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2016
There's also some pretty interesting stuff about how altruism is a feature of many successful memes. See Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine."
javjav
2.7 / 5 (21) Mar 23, 2016
Saying that religion helps to care about others is a nonsense. 90% of of wars and massacres in history have been made in the name of "God'. Religion is bullshit. Well that's not true. In fact, bullshit is much better than religion
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 23, 2016
So this study makes sense to me because the construction of religion and the need to form social bonds are interrelated evolutionarily speaking. Religion arose from the brain structures used to work in groups and that involves empathy.

So it makes sense that religion would be correlated to empathy. It does not make sense to assume causation in either direction.

And there's no reason why an individual's religiosity now would be a indicator of empathy or vice versa. Social evolution is a group-wide adaptation. It is only tangentially related to individual behaviour.

I don't think anyone would deny that e.g. Richard Dawkins displays evidence of psychopathy or that the current Pope displays a great deal of empathy. But then I could provide ten examples that go the other way. As usual, when it comes to human behaviour there are more factors than can be observed in a correlative study.
Plutonic
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2016
The existence - or not - of a god is one thing, but religion is another thing entirely. For all we know, there is a god and it has no interest in us whatsoever. For all we know there is no god and all religions are 100% fabrication. All the major religions base their beliefs on hand-me-down accounts dating back for centuries. I would have thought a real god would make some effort to be contemporary and accessible, rather than expect us to take someone else's word for it. In other words, make sure there is always a genuine, verifiable prophet or two in circulation at any given time. Or better still, communicate strictly on a one-to-one basis so as to avoid any misinterpretation of the god's will. The concept of Faith is grossly overrated, too - all it means is that a person is prepared to accept someone else's word for something that may or may not be true. So what? Big deal! Where is the merit in that? It's just an ordinary, everyday decision that may or may not be wise.
leetennant
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2016
You don't think there might be a small issue of forming cooperative social bonds in small groups if you never accept what somebody tells you on faith?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2016
To be fair, @leetennant, there's kind of a spectrum of things one might take on faith shading over to things one might not. If I wake up and someone says, "It's raining," I probably won't go look (unless I happen to be particularly fond of rain, or particularly worried about my crops). OTOH, if I wake up and someone says, "Hey, last night I SAW GOD," I'm gonna be pretty skeptical. And I'd say that's a fairly important piece of information about other things that person might tell me, too. Detecting dishonesty is a well-honed human trait and important for forming cooperative social bonds in small groups, too. Trust is earned.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2016
there's kind of a spectrum of things one might take on faith shading over to things one might not
absolutely true
but the human brain is also hard wired to certain "delusions" if you will
take the oft repeated story from Dr. Tyson:
There are 2 humans on the savannah, and they see moving grass. person 1 thinks "predator" and runs while person 2 thinks "it's just the wind"... we are descendants of person 1

so, it is very common that the human has "faith" in their life, be it faith in their abilities or some other unfounded belief sans evidence

now, i also draw a large line between a "faith" and religion -the former is a belief in something without evidence whereas the latter is the codified rules or tenets used to judge others and control people

there may be a connection between empathy and faith... but IMHO i think religion really does form impenetrable walls of hate and prejudice

& we can see how that is used to control people
leetennant
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2016
But religion is just socialised faith. That's why it's used to bond people within the group and exclude people outside the group. Because it's a commonality of joint experience for those within the group. Nobody said empathy wasn't unevenly expressed within the religious. That's specifically not what was measured.
NIPSZX
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2016
I would think that both religion and science activate the same areas of the brain. Both categories rely on theories and future predictions. We do not know every single thing about science and we learn more each day. We do not know anything about religion except for what people in the past wrote. We never know what the future holds because humans cannot see into the future. We cannot see every spectrum of light and we cannot yet gauge every piece of matter and particle in the distant universe. We have to have faith sometimes in science as one would that was religious. If the past writings of the bible were proven to be true then everybody would believe, but with different religions and writings it is impossible to decipher the truth from the exaggerated. All in all, it would seem that religion and science are more closely related than any other two categories of subjects. Even if religion was proved to be wrong, it would still be categorized as SCIENCE fiction. If proven true?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2016
But religion is just socialised faith. That's why it's used to bond people within the group and exclude people outside the group. Because it's a commonality of joint experience for those within the group.
You're not excluding socialized faiths that aren't religions? I guess not- your point sounds like you mean that these faiths are chosen precisely because they will *emotionally* (as opposed to rationally) bond people to the group. Did I get it right?

Nobody said empathy wasn't unevenly expressed within the religious. That's specifically not what was measured.
That is an excellent point.
leetennant
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2016
But religion is just socialised faith. That's why it's used to bond people within the group and exclude people outside the group. Because it's a commonality of joint experience for those within the group.
You're not excluding socialized faiths that aren't religions? I guess not- your point sounds like you mean that these faiths are chosen precisely because they will *emotionally* (as opposed to rationally) bond people to the group. Did I get it right?


Socialised faiths that aren't technically "religions" are actually religions. Cognitively speaking, they're the same thing. In terms of social behaviour and brain activity, there's very little difference between being Catholic and being, say, a Liverpool United fan. And for precisely the same reason. Both are cognitive expressions (I often think of them as an unfortunate byproduct) of our social nature.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2016
Yeah, I got you right. And I agree with that. One does tend to form emotional attachments in that way.

But it strikes me as kind of, shall we say overdoing it, either if you go out and start trying to recruit people by knocking on their door and telling them they're going to hell, or if you show up at every game even if you're wife's having a baby. One needs to have some restraint in these things lest they suck up your whole life.
Squirrel
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2016
39 comments. None seem to have cared to read the paper (at least not have the courtesy to provide its link in case others wish to do so). Here it is Why Do You Believe in God? Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking (open access), Mentalizing and Moral Concern http://journals.p....0149989

Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2016
FWIW, wrote a response on this re a panel which included Richard Dawkins, my note can be found here, should be public
https://www.faceb...43358644

Update:
Although facile believer retort is "..can't prove a god doesnt exist" & seems to offer them security they just exploit misunderstanding Science re "Balance of Probability" & uneducated confusion re "Theory", which has specific meaning in Science, far more than mere idea & more than hypothesis ie In Science means very close connection of testable hypothesis with rational interpretation of evidence all of which predicated on unity in mathematics.

All gods claimed are; impotent communicators & by virtue of claim people get; Status, Authority & Power primarily over the emotionally meek & intellectually feeble offering primitive determinism

Conclusion *all* religions are mere claim (for control) definitively False !
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2016
Many of you belong to a "religion", but will not recognize the fact, since you are in denial (willfully ignorant).
https://www.youtu...OSxTy1aU
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2016
Further to my previous post.
https://www.youtu..._NNKbWnQ
atomless
3 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2016
The title is misleading. Scientists, who are religious, disregard their religious beliefs when they practice science. Religion and science are not necessarily in conflict when the religious scientists decides to unconsciously turn off religious beliefs. This makes religion and science incompatible during those times. This conscious disregard is delusional. Like believing guardian angels work except in the laboratory.
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2016
It should be remembered, among other things, Isaac Newton, who develop mechanics and calculus, believed the Bible word for word and even tried to explain a number of passages. Gregor Mendel, who developed the basics of genetic theory, was a monk. Atheists have, in their record, lying that "all the world's wars have been caused by religion", the lie that, "you can't prove a negative", and Christopher Hitchens depraved, "if someone does not provide proof of what they say, that automatically disproves it". Fermat did not provide proof of his famous Last Theorem, but that didn't stop mathematicians from working on it. Atheists say they require proof, yet none have proof tomorrow will come, yet they put money away in the bank. Newton, Mendel and others evidently could use both sides of their brain. The atheists demonstrate what may be a significant mental problem, only one side of their brain working.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 24, 2016
antigoracle claims
... "religion", but will not recognize the fact, since you are in denial (willfully ignorant)
No - he beats you into intellectual submission !

Telling us you are mere follower & minimal consideration of manipulative language, you focus simply on whats said thus fully blind to importance of key exclusions :-(

Eg. Crichton claims re religions but fails to state 'untestable', 'illogical' & wanders with vague language, thus clear he's "searching" to capture. audience

ie Doesn't articulate well 'sustainability' connection, his view noted by audience has innate prejudice sullying cognition or maybe specifically chooses language to sell books (ie $) - he fails base integrity test at 3 lowest levels, you didnt notice & robotically follow :-(

Religion re gods are (untestable) beliefs & nil rational logic whereas environmentalism soundly testable with evidentiary logic

Recognizing polluting residence is wrong makes you an environmentalist, doh !
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2016
Look. It's Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast. Mutterin' Mike is upset that I ignored him in my previous post, when I qualified ignorant with willfully.
Guy_Underbridge
2.8 / 5 (18) Mar 24, 2016
Julie:
Atheists say they require proof, yet none have proof tomorrow will come, yet they put money away in the bank.
Tomorrow has continued to come on a daily basis all my life, so I'm willing to bet on it doing so again. I've never seen this trend in what the religious require 'in faith'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 24, 2016
This is direct evidence that the human species is domesticated.

What wild animal could survive that would push "aside the critical/analytical way of thinking" to identify threats, sources of food and shelter, and reproductive mates?

Humans have been selected over the course of 1000s of gens for the ability to adhere to the tribal dynamic; ie internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity.

Allegiance to the tribe requires self-sacrifice, surrender of well-being and repro rights, and acceptance of leadership without question.

These behaviors strengthen tribal cohesion. Such tribes could be expected to win out over others in conflict over resources. This is otherwise referred to as group selection.

Religion further reduces analytical thinking and serves to identify and cull members who are unable to surrender the will to think for themselves. It also removes any residual empathy for enemies by declaring them enemies of the gods themselves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (17) Mar 24, 2016
Religions have the unique ability to assign enemy status to people who would not normally be considered enemies. This includes family members, friends, neighbors, as well as people in distant lands who would not be perceived as a threat.

"34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'" matt 10

-Religion is a powerful tool which can unite disparate tribes and extend tribal dominance over regions and continents. It enabled the formation of empires, as described in the old testament. It also enabled their destruction from within, as described in the new testament.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 24, 2016
julianpenrod (J) claims
... Isaac Newton, who develop mechanics and calculus, believed the Bible word for word and even tried to explain a number of passages
No, Nil evidence he 'believed' & admitted he failed to explain ie only tried - goes to show, as Newton being logical & intelligent, couldn't lower himself to 'believe' irrational "logic" Eg Eve & Guile

Recall those times people were excluded if they weren't ardent 'believers', dissent was quashed, no debates, distrust of those against the mob

J says
Gregor Mendel, who developed the basics of genetic theory, was a monk
Same issue with benefit of free food/board, going through the motions doesnt indicate proof of (private) belief, besides those times were tough, church powerful & wealthy & *not* to challenged

J tell why *all* gods (bar none) are Incompetent narrow selective communicators that can't cross oceans only rely on mere claim ?

J prejudice re atheists & war isnt your best skill, crusades ?
BSD
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2016
"Religion has no place


I edited out the unnecessary bit.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2016
@MM, Newton believed in god. That is a historical fact. In his own time he was regerded as an accomplished theologian, and actually wrote more on theology than he did on science. His writings on religion did not "toe the line" of accepted Christianity and so was not pressured to do so,... much of his writings being kept to himself.

Maybe you should read a good biography of him rather than inventing convenient excuses. The evidence is overwhelming,... over 2.5 millions words written in his own hand.

compose
Mar 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2016
Telling us you are mere follower & minimal consideration of manipulative language, you focus simply on whats said thus fully blind to importance of key exclusions :-(

Oh, the blabbering of Mutterin' Mike. All Mutterin' Mike knows are 2 links on Wikipedia, which he is incapable of reading, far less comprehending. Case in point, when Mutterin' Mike attempted to post a 3rd link, he claimed Bonobos were monkeys when the first 2 lines on the page clearly expressed that they were apes. Mutterin' Mike FAILS to read what he preaches, and is thus fully blind to his ignorance. Telling us you are a mere parrot & no consideration of comprehending science, you focus on your cult's dogma.
betterexists
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2016
This makes a good deal of sense, and I'm happy to see the comment section has yet to explode with both sides professing their superiority and bashing each other.

Faith and Science both have their merits, and their assumed mutual-exclusivity by people with extreme views on either side is a falsehood.

They Both CANNOT Coexist, Period.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2016
@MM, Newton believed in god. That is a historical fact. In his own time he was regerded as an accomplished theologian, and actually wrote more on theology than he did on science. His writings on religion did not "toe the line" of accepted Christianity and so was not pressured to do so,... much of his writings being kept to himself.
The alternative at the time was excommunication which ultimately happened. Also, his writings indicate he was at least slightly mad. After his death, mercury was found in his hair. Probably kinematics is what kept him grounded
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2016
@MM, Newton believed in god. That is a historical fact. In his own time he was regerded as an accomplished theologian, and actually wrote more on theology than he did on science. His writings on religion did not "toe the line" of accepted Christianity and so was not pressured to do so,... much of his writings being kept to himself.
The alternative at the time was excommunication and possibly death. Also, his writings indicate he was at least slightly mad. Probably kinematics is what kept him grounded

Why do you think I re-function stuff as an art form...:-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2016
Newton was a mystic. Noumenon you like mystics don't you?

"He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible"

"Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic."

"Like many contemporaries (e.g., Thomas Aikenhead) he lived with the threat of severe punishment if he had been open about his religious beliefs. Heresy was a crime..."

"Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'. As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul..."

-I don't think even Julian would think he was xian.
antigoracle
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2016
Why do you think I re-function stuff as an art form...:-)

Someday the genius in your insanity will be recognized. ✌
julianpenrod
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2016
Among other things, then, they try to insist Newton was an atheist because he was a heretic because he didn't believe in the Anglican faith but held to a different form of Christianity.
The "conclusions" about Newton and Mendel only pretending to be religious also seem to invoke an unsupported, undemonstrated fact. Yet they refuse to accept the presence of God based on what they claim is a lack of evidence. And none even admitted they were making "conclusions" based on what they themselves would call unprovable statements.
julianpenrod
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2016
Captain Stumpy talks about two people in the savannah seeing grass move, one saying it's a predator, the other that it's the wind. Note, Christopher Hitchens says that, if you can't provide evidence for a supposition, like that it's a predator, then it isn't a predator.
And, despite Mike_Massen, the Crusades weren't the only war the world knew and the atheists lied that all wars were caused by religion. And they were more economic/political.
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2016
And, a fact of the matter is that people who can't accept the presence of God are working with a busted sensor. You won't easily measure the temperature of a star with a weight scale. In order to sense the presence of God, you need to undergo the sea change, absolute scrupulousness, working to improve the world and yourself, and doing it because you know it's right, not for the benefits it will provide you. Doing that will allow you to perceive God. In some cases directly, among other things, yes, with coincidences, but ones that can benefit you. But, too, you will have senses that the mud bound dullards cannot conceive. That's why Christ praised Peter for recognizing Him as the Son of God. Even miracles don't prove it, since they can be from someone with a lot of power, but still not God. Peter had a level of vision that those who would not accept the Word of God did not have.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2016
Religion further reduces analytical thinking and serves to identify and cull members who are unable to surrender the will to think for themselves. It also removes any residual empathy for enemies by declaring them enemies of the gods themselves.

So perfectly describes the Chicken Littles and their AGW Cult.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2016
...two people in the savannah
@julie penrod
i don't think you understood the analogy
... point was: humans have delusion built into our brains because of paranoia, fear response and survival (better safe than sorry)

that doesn't make it a good thing any more than it justifies your belief in a deity
... take the point that there are 40K PLUS divisions of the abrahamic religions alone, and you really think your singular cult-division-belief-system-whatthef*ckever is the only one true path? (a good relevant bit about 5-6 min in)
https://www.youtu...-12sSyKI

people who can't accept the presence of God are working with a busted sensor
actually, it is the other way around: people who "need" a deity have the busted sensor because you require something to blame your bullsh*t on to excuse your blatant irresponsible overwhelming stupidity

just because you want an excuse doesn't mean it is a good thing to have
(see PRISON religion records)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2016
@julie cont'd
In order to sense the presence of God, you need to undergo the sea change, absolute scrupulousness, working to improve the world and yourself, and doing it because you know it's right, not for the benefits it will provide you
you do realise that this is what scientists do and NOT what religious leaders do, right?
you really think "Benny" Hinn or Jim and Tammy baker changed the world for the better and that Higgs, Feynman, Einstein, Mason, Dawkins or most other scientists don't contribute to the betterment of the world?

tell you what, considering you're working on a computer that is developed from science, NOT RELIGION, perhaps you should stop using it and pray for us all to listen to your messages! after all, your deity is omniscient and omnipotent, so it shouldn't be hard for it to talk to the world, right?
(sarc/hyperbole)

faith may well be inherent in humans, but religion (those codified rules) is nothing but justification for control and hate
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2016
There's another way of looking at this, which is that religions are the ultimate conspiracy theories.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2016
religions are the ultimate conspiracy theories
@Da Schneib
interesting take...
care to elaborate??
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2016
Well, the root of all conspiracy theories is, you see the grass shake, must be a lion, right?

So, you see lightning and rain and snow and sun, must be gods, right?

I think you can follow the breadcrumbs from there. ;)
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2016
Noumenon (N) claims
@MM, Newton believed in god. That is a historical fact
No !
Written paper mplying acceptance are *not* evidence, you desperately need life education in Guile with Operant/Classical Conditioning of Psychology

Claims & biographies are *not* Facts, you're dimmed with rose tint glass

N says
... actually wrote more on theology than he did on science
So ?
If you'd read some of his notes you'd see he chooses language Very carefully indeed appeals to simpletons - just as bulk religious writings, whilst being very smart seeding his writings with a certain type of doubt, doh :-)

N claims
...not "toe the line" of accepted Christianity and so was not pressured to do so
Can't infer it, he's far smarter !

N said it
.. much of his writings being kept to himself
Indeed why yah think ?

N says
..evidence is overwhelming,... over 2.5 million...
No !

You badly confuse collective claim on claim coupled with opinion as if evidence :-(
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2016
julianpenrod with facile generalization
And, despite Mike_Massen, the Crusades weren't the only war the world knew and the atheists lied that all wars were caused by religion
Which ones 'Lied' ?

Your pattern of marginalising groups is similar to that used in bigotry & racism, its not just facile lumping people together its immensely unintelligent, can't you better than that :-(

Obvious facile emotional attachment & prejudice re your untenable position does you no credit :-(

Written evidence re crusades show concerns for christianity, there were no economics re invading the lands then leaving them, you are not just completely wrong but, grasping at straws...

You still haven't answered my question re *all* gods being *bad* impotent communicators who can't cross oceans and totally rely on lazy simple unintelligent emotionally pliant humans to 'spread the word' which equals "make lottsa unsupportable claims for power" ?

Why yah think ?
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2016
The atheists who said all the world's wars were caused by religion, which was said due to hate, lied, and all the atheists who refused to reveal the falsehood lied, as well.
CaptainStumpy tries to act like I didn't take the point about the people in the savannah. The point is that Christopher Hitchens' depraved non reasoning would be likely to destroy an individual who abided by it in that situation. Hitchens' "tenet" is depraved.
I never said the like of Hinn or Roberts or the others were truly invoking God. I even said that God prefers that people act with innate honor and nobility, rather than need ceremony. I said no origin stories have the first people coming into being seated in pews. And, face it, any "scientists" who did not take open issue with declaring God is not present despite having no proof are complicit and acting cravenly and malignantly.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2016
CaptainStumpy tries to act like I didn't take the point
@julie
act my butt!
you *didn't* get the point
Hitchens' "tenet" is depraved
ok, prove it
I never said
no, you inferred that only x-tians could "improve the world and yourself" blah blah blah... it is patently false and proven as such
I even said that God prefers
and you also refused to prove the point
*how* do you know your deity prefers anything? your own book is riddled with false claims, contradictions, plagiarizes other myths and flat out tells you to be a violent sociopath who defends only the "true believers" of your specific cult!!!
any "scientists" who did not take open issue with declaring God is not present despite having no proof are complicit and acting cravenly and malignantly
so, IOW - if we don't follow your rules we are all heathens and should die, right?

watch the video - just skip to the 5min mark and watch it

*prove* that your cult has "the" answers
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
To begin with, I did not imply that only Christians could "improve yourself and the world". The word is not "inferred". I said that the sea change would allow you to see God 's presence. I never mentioned anything about Christianity and, in fact, I said God would prefer man act nobly on their own! Is Captain Stumpy as unaware of what I said as of English? And why would God prefer religion? God placed man here to do things. Why would God want man only sitting in pews? And, again, I said that I am pointing out the correct direction, and I did not invoke the Bible either, as such. Can Captain Stumpy refer to my words not what they want to make people think I said. And I pointed it out correctly that Hitchens' depravity is loutish and perverted. And those who underwent the sea change would perceive God's presence in ways the craven shallow and insipid will not. I talk about being scrupulous and acting out of good will and Captain Stumpy calls it a cult.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2016
julianpenrod (J) who purports
.. atheists who said all the world's wars were caused by religion, which was said due to hate, lied, and all the atheists who refused to reveal the falsehood lied, as well
Who are these ? they're confirmed statements ? where said ? when etc ?

Your problem, emotionally pliant primitive peoples can't offer *any* rational position *only* rely on (emotional) claims, spout open-ended attacks against arbitrary groups - its immensely simplistic, not smart, doesn't achieve any intelligent convergent dialectic :-(

J says
..God prefers that people act with innate honor and nobility
Who made this claim, when, how do we check it ?
Check Samuel - god kills & punishes !

J *Still* fails to answer basic question at heart of all religions re Provenance, please answer:-

"Why are ALL gods bad impotent communicators ?" Eg jesus refused/can't write !!!

Which is FAR more likely a narrow impotent god or only people making claims for Power ?
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
Whats even more strange is that the best science came up with a new creation myth, the ' big bang'.
Guy_Underbridge
2.6 / 5 (20) Mar 25, 2016
Da Schneib:
There's another way of looking at this, which is that religions are the ultimate conspiracy theories.
Interesting thought. But let's take it a step further... Religion has been bred into humans. How many generations of humans have had their existence depend on accepting and taking part in religion. How many generations have had to have religious blessing to 'sanctify' their ability to mate and produce offspring?
Guy_Underbridge
1 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2016
(edit)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2016
Whats even more strange is that the best science came up with a new creation myth, the ' big bang'.
Ummmm, with, you know, that evidence stuff.

Most people who have actually studied that evidence accept the ΛCDM model, which cosmologists call the Standard Model of Cosmology. It includes not only the Big Bang but the inflationary universe scenario of the Big Bang. In other words, you haven't been keeping up with the research and don't appear to care about the facts.

Da Schneib:
There's another way of looking at this, which is that religions are the ultimate conspiracy theories.
How many generations have had to have religious blessing to 'sanctify' their ability to mate and produce offspring?
Even more surprising, it seems that increasing numbers of us reject religion, despite this handicap. This is attributable to increasing education and exposure to the facts.
Guy_Underbridge
2.6 / 5 (20) Mar 25, 2016
Even more surprising, it seems that increasing numbers of us reject religion, despite this handicap.
...but only because executions, beheadings and heretic-based bonfires are frowned upon in modern civil societies.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2016
Even more surprising, it seems that increasing numbers of us reject religion, despite this handicap.
...but only because executions, beheadings and heretic-based bonfires are frowned upon in modern civil societies.
Remember that executions, beheadings, and heretic-based bonfires were features of the Hundred Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, and the English Revolution and Protectorate.

These atrocities were within living memory at the time of the crafting of the US Constitution and are acknowledged, and abhorred and made illegal, in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. I have always considered this a very revealing defect in the arguments of "strict constructionists" who don't mention the English Revolution and the Protectorate, and the atrocities they committed in the name of religion, and the fact that the US Puritans were the remnants of the people who committed those atrocities.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2016
I find it amusing, and quite revealing, that modern US religious bigots don't seem to want to discuss the Hundred Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, or the English Revolution. They also seem to want to forget that the religious persecution of the Puritans was because they wanted to burn heretics alive and hang supposed witches; see Salem Witch Trials. These people were flatly rejected by their saner counterparts during the drafting of the US Constitution, in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

We hear about the Crusades, but they weren't nearly as bad, in context, as what happened after the Protestant Reformation in Europe. And in Anglo-US history, the English Civil War and the persecution of Protestants in England and Wales in the time of Queen Mary I were the worst atrocities in that history. The Muslims got off easy.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2016
To begin with, I did not imply that only Christians could "improve yourself and the world". The word is not "inferred". I said that the sea change would allow you to see God 's presence. I never mentioned anything about Christianity and, in fact, I said God would prefer man act nobly on their own!
- julianpenrod
Christianity is fixed upon the Christ as the bringer of "good news", in that the whole reason for Christ's existence was for the purpose of reaffirming God's Love for humanity, and to give guidance and instruction that would provide a path toward self-improvement and steering away from immorality and its terrible consequences. The Christ's guiding light was for all who accepted Him as the Messiah, no matter their circumstances or who they were. Those who rejected the Christ and His guidance had the Free Will to make their choice. No one can be coerced into believing in and having faith in the Messiah. To see God, one must believe in Him.
(cont'd)

obama_socks
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2016
And why would God prefer religion? God placed man here to do things. Why would God want man only sitting in pews? And, again, I said that I am pointing out the correct direction, and I did not invoke the Bible either, as such. Can Captain Stumpy refer to my words not what they want to make people think I said.
- julianpenrod
Correct. Man was created to settle the world and procreate. The Earth was devoid of intelligent life forms until God created the Adam. The first test of obedience to God was in the Garden of Eden. The lack of obedience proved that man couldn't be allowed to become immortal. So he was driven out. But succeeding generations also lacked obedience with few exceptions. Religions are man-made. A social get-together, very often to see and be seen and wear your best clothes.

Stump has an ulterior motive, and that MO is to get personal information from commenters like he did to gkam and tried to do to benni. Stump twists words out of context as habit.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2016

And I pointed it out correctly that Hitchens' depravity is loutish and perverted. And those who underwent the sea change would perceive God's presence in ways the craven shallow and insipid will not. I talk about being scrupulous and acting out of good will and Captain Stumpy calls it a cult.
- julanpenrod
Hitchens was, indeed, depraved. Worse than a rabid animal. There are a few atheists who are good people, but they will never see God the Creator b/c of their refusal to believe in Him and their rejection of the obedience necessary. Being good isn't enough.

Stump is an evil person and is Otto's toadie. This should have been apparent to everyone by now, unless they're too blind to see what is happening every time Stump and Otto tries to force someone to give proof of this...and give evidence of that. Stump has gotten personal info from antialias and gkam and many others. All that info goes to Otto, of course.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2016
If anyone else gives personal or public info to Stump/Otto that he insists on validating, then you're a damned fool. He will have you over a barrel and in his clutches so that you will have to be his toadie also. Didn't anyone ever wonder WHY Stump/Otto is so dead-set against religion and philosophy? Think it over carefully. Religion scares him. The belief and faith in God the Creator frightens him because he knows that he doesn't have much time left. So he makes fun of that belief and expects everyone else to join in. And many of you do...foolishly.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2016
I find it amusing, and quite revealing, that modern US religious bigots don't seem to want to discuss the Hundred Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, or the English Revolution. They also seem to want to forget that the religious persecution of the Puritans was because they wanted to burn heretics alive and hang supposed witches; see Salem Witch Trials. These people were flatly rejected by their saner counterparts during the drafting of the US Constitution, in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

We hear about the Crusades, but they weren't nearly as bad, in context, as what happened after the Protestant Reformation in Europe. And in Anglo-US history, the English Civil War and the persecution of Protestants in England and Wales in the time of Queen Mary I were the worst atrocities in that history. The Muslims got off easy.
- da schneib
All done by mankind...out of Pride and Self-Satisfaction. It was the SEVEN DEADLY SINS that set the tone for the evils that were done
obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016


seven deadly sins

Please note: the early church classified these sins as cardinal sins or capital vices and taught that they could not be forgiven. However, according to the Bible these seven deadly sins are completely and totally forgivable by God, but this doesn't give free license to commit these sins. Biblically, the only sin that cannot be forgiven is complete rejection of God's grace which is outright rebellion against God, also known as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

List of the Seven Deadly Sins:
Envy = the desire to have an item or experience that someone else possesses
Gluttony = excessive ongoing consumption of food or drink
Greed or Avarice
Lust
Pride
Sloth
Wrath
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2016
@obama_socks
Wow a lot of posts which are *only* claims/opinions from stories, nothing substantive :-(
Please answer simple questions, ie preface each with "Why "

1. are *all* claimed gods *ever* Very narrow arbitrary & impotent communicators ?
2. huge time gaps re 'voices in the head'; moses, jesus, mohammed, smith ?
3. can't anything ever written about any & all gods definitive ?
4. didn't jesus' dad teach him to write ie relying only on mere claims ?
5. wasnt Eve ever educated in Guile ?
6. did moses' claimed god make satan knowing it would deceive Eve ?
7. did god disappear allowing satan to manipulate an innocent young girl ?
8. punish all progeny of all creation for ever for uneducated failure of a parent ?
9. is gods action not used as parenting example ?
10. can't *any* claim ever be qualified ?

If yu had lots of progeny why would you *only* communicate with one knowing it causes division which hurts the others ?

Start with the easiest - number 1 ?

Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2016
obama_socks with many failures of fact
The Earth was devoid of intelligent life forms until God created the Adam
No !
Eg. Dolphins, Apes, Cats - all have their intelligence for their survival and their social structures ie all the same in kind and well described under Operant & Classical conditioning. Or do you state intelligent animals came after humans ?

obama_socks claims
The first test of obedience to God was in the Garden of Eden
Test for who please ?

Are you claiming god needed to test for itself or to write a story - where is this story written, in what language & obviously long before old testament Eg Greeks 700+ yrs before etc ?

obama_socks claims
The lack of obedience proved that man couldn't be allowed to become immortal
To who, the various angels or as severe punishment to *all* creation for ever, is this sane ?

Or obama_socks do you assert adam/eve was just before moses & if not how long & why any gap at all ie Nil continuity ?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) Mar 25, 2016
Why do you think I re-function stuff as an art form...:-)

Someday the genius in your insanity will be recognized. ✌

I like to think it's insanity in my genius....
Guy_Underbridge
2.6 / 5 (21) Mar 25, 2016
Biblically, the only sin that cannot be forgiven is complete rejection of God's grace

Wow.. you have a different bible (but that's not surprising).

Those seven deadly sins aren't found directly in the Bible, but can be extrapolated from various citations (ex: Proverbs 6:16-19). They were actually written by a fourth-century monk named Evagrius Ponticus.
In the New Testament, Paul supposedly said (Galatians 5:19-21) those that practice adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like" shall not inherit the Kingdom of God... So much for your guaranteed ticket through the pearly gates...
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 25, 2016
antigoracle says
I've more faith in science than in faith
Cool, then further Scientific Method instead of attacking people, ie deal with facts

You go on about Environmentalism & AGW claiming religious & can only link facile youtube videos from Crichton who can't articulate well & misses many points. Then when challenged you make idiotic personal attacks re me & wikipedia & slip I made months ages ago I apologized for. You really are coming across as an ugly piece of work OR suffering a bad case of schizophrenia or amygdalic senile impairment

ie Re your comment Faith in Science, fine, use the logic you could have learned here from so many; both Environmentalism & AGW have key base in Physics evidence & rational logic !

Environmentalism: Sensible to not dirty your residence or others
AGW: Radiative heat transfer - Infra-Red spectra of greenhouse gases esp CO2

antigoracle, I should feel sorry for you but, you make that difficult, please learn Physics/Logic
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2016
Hi Da Schneib, nice to see you back, felt compelled to add to your view as the anti-science/physics mob seem to totally unaware re Science & "Balance of Probability" (BoP)

snoosebaum claims
.. best science came up with a new creation myth, the ' big bang' (BB)
No !
Physics inextricably tied to Math offers probabilistic extrapolation consistent with highly reliable well proven Quantum Mechanics (QM) ie You have a mobile ph, a PC, rely on GPS, drive a car, use thermometer, any medical tests Eg CAT/PET/MRI scans, pathology, blood tests, food made etc All of these are predicated upon Physics which is Very closely tied with mathematics at all levels !

BoP re combinatorial complexity of proven Physics with maths when equations run back offers high likelihood there's origin moment/beginning which we call the BB, those equations fit even down to a few microseconds with an immense elegance/consistency Eg via QM

So far *nothing* better re BoP - is there please ?
antigoracle
2 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
Mutterin' Mike exposes his ignorance yet again.
Environmentalism is a cult(ure) which, just like all the religions, preaches to the ignorant, what it claims is good for them, while actually doing the opposite.
Have a listen to Environmentalist Douglas Adams.
https://www.youtu...p;t=4730
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2016
would allow you to see God 's presence
@julie
which "god"?
there are so many
I never mentioned anything about Christianity
but you are a professed xtian, so infer based upon your beliefs - or do you worship satan as the one true god?
get the point yet?
(doubtful)
I said that I am pointing out the correct direction
according to whom? because the Lakota have an entirely different "correct direction", as do the Norse, druids, mayans, etc
Can Captain Stumpy refer to my words
i am, but they don't make sense in the light of evidence based reason/logic - only in the light of delusional faith based religious narcissism
those who underwent the sea change would perceive God's presence
again... which god? Usen? Wakan Tanka? Yaweh? Allah? Jebus? Ford? Merlin? Kamikaze?
I talk about being scrupulous and acting out of good will and Captain Stumpy calls it a cult
no, i call your RELIGION a cult
big difference
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2016
wonder WHY Stump... is so dead-set against religion and philosophy?
What does a court call a comment or statement of proposed fact that cannot be substantiated by evidence?
*A LIE*
(or a religion - same thing)

what do they call it if it is proven by the poster/originators own comments from historical posts that said poster is intentionally lying and trying to deceive by falsification (like obuttsniffer did here: http://phys.org/n...ich.html )?
*PERJURY*

what does anyone call it when one claims moral superiority through religion but demonstrates the opposite like benji, liar-kam or obutthead?
*HYPOCRISY*

i don't fear death any more than i fear obutthead.

i find it sad that she would need to make up scary children's stories to explain the awesome universe b/c of her need to blame anyone but herself

your delusions don't frighten me b/c i live in the real world- and i understand sociopaths need to control others (thru religion)
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2016
Captain Stumpy says
What does a court call a comment or statement of proposed fact that cannot be substantiated by evidence?
*A LIE*
No, Never !

Studied law at UWA, been in court & won (Evidence) against my own Aust Federal Government 1990's, defended in Supreme Court re ambit ugly mortgagee - all of which spent many hrs preparing re Key legal Maxims recognized Globally - well, except for Kangaroo courts in 3rd world

Similarly applies in Science throughout but, moderated by "Balance of Probability" where courts interpret "benefit of doubt" as a "safe position" !

Please correct opinion, you *must* have meant "Assertion" or "Claim", I see why Ghost attacked gkam re that confusion

ie Rules of Evidence assertion/claims/not responding are Clear !
Eg claims/assertions/interpretations & re 'missing posts' cannot & are *not* presumed "lies" ever in any court anywhere in US/UK/Aust/France etc, that mess Ghost started dragged the forum down, its facile & false.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2016
... those that practice adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like" shall not inherit the Kingdom of God....


Well maybe not, but it makes for a kick-ass party.

Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2016
antigoracle claims
Mutterin' Mike exposes his ignorance yet again
No !
You're sounding as Trump, making ambit claims un-connectable with evidence !

antigoracle says
Environmentalism is a cult(ure) which, just like all the religions, preaches to the ignorant...
No preaching, based in sound logic *& as you also with some idiot zealots, yet more facile claims by someone who's gone to a lot of trouble to spout nonsense without actually getting a grip on logic or base Physics or even useful protocols which had you learned might have offered a voice but, in any case you cannot follow up with any evidence, which makes your claims completely unsupportable & as there is evidence to the contrary, you have been here long enough to learn but havent are you ill or a bot ?

antigoracle says
.. listen to Environmentalist Douglas Adams
He's a conversationalist, besides what's wrong caring for environment, not polluting & adopting useful practices to conserve ?
rderkis
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
Based on the content of the majority of comments written here, few are scientists or even amature scientists. Scientists don't attack people they attack ideas. And they don't use words like dumb, silly, crazy, or intentionally mess with a persons name or reputation. And they definitely don't bully others hoping that will convince anyone of anything.
Here is a great article found on lifescience that describes what I am trying to say.
http://www.livesc...not.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2016
Among other things, then, they try to insist Newton was an atheist because he was a heretic because he didn't believe in the Anglican faith but held to a different form of Christianity
I for one pointed out that YOU would consider him a heretic because he didn't believe that jesus was god.

That is no kind of xianity. You xians burned Arianism out of existence long ago.

For that matter, Hitchens didn't believe jesus was god either. Hitchens had a great respect for science just as newton did. And yet you praise newton and condemn Hitchens because of things you don't know about either of them.

You are only able to believe in jesus the son of god and a woman because of what you don't know about them either. You won't allow yourself to learn enough to understand that they are fiction, and that you like so many you have been duped.

You're more than willing to believe this about most other faithers, why not yourself?

"Reason is the enemy of faith." Luther
rderkis
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2016
Quote ""Reason is the enemy of faith." Luther"
And personal attacks are the enemy of reasoning.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
@obama_socks
Wow a lot of posts which are *only* claims/opinions from stories, nothing substantive :-(
Please answer simple questions, ie preface each with "Why "

1. are *all* claimed gods *ever* Very narrow arbitrary & impotent communicators ?
- Mike Massen
I am not familiar with ALL claimed gods...only the One True God the Creator. Choices are made and paths are taken by humans. Some pass the Test, while many others fail the Test. I doubt that the Creator would waste words on those who had made the choice of UNBELIEF in His existence. He created the first man (and woman). But left to their own devices, they often choose to forego the Creator, and instead, for many gods...or none at all. The Creator is the One Who does the choosing of whom He will communicate with. Neither you nor I nor Satan have the ability to determine with whom the Creator will let Himself be known. It is presumptuous to make demands on the Creator of the Universe as though He was your child.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
"2. huge time gaps re 'voices in the head'; moses, jesus, mohammed, smith ?" - Mike Massen

Islam is based on Judaism and the Bible and was founded as an answer to the Middle Eastern requirement of the worship of only ONE God...instead of many as it had been with the Sumerians, Akkadians, Egyptians, and other Middle Eastern peoples. As Judaism is considered to be a "closed" religion that wasn't conducive to accepting "outsiders", the Middle Easterners (Semites) were ripe for the acceptance of a religion that was concocted from the Old Testament, but with a different take based on the teachings of Mohammed.
Joseph Smith was visited by either an Angel...or Satan. I have never seen the Golden Plates of which he spoke and claimed to have been given by an angel. Unsure of their existence. LDS is the one to ask.
"Voices in the head" can mean several things. Depends on what is said/told. Some sounds are a symptom of old age, tumors, hearing problems, etc. Rarely a voice from Heaven.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
"3. can't anything ever written about any & all gods definitive ?" - Mike Massen

There is plenty of Literature wrt the gods and goddesses that the ancient peoples had formulated in the fervent hope that they would be protected, crops would grow well, weather be mild with enough rain, children be born and grow up healthy, etc. This is normal and happens in most cultures. It is only AFTER the Creator revealed Himself to those He chose to reveal His existence to, is when the knowledge of His existence was confirmed by miraculous events coupled with the Creator's appearing and speaking to either one...or many. The miraculous events were necessary, apparently, due to the inherent ignorance of those who would not believe in the Creator UNLESS they saw miracles happening, having been detected by their senses. Faith-based belief in the Creator is becoming rare, due to the ignorance of demanding evidence that He exists.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
"4. didn't jesus' dad teach him to write ie relying only on mere claims ?" - Mike Massen
Yeshuah (Yeheshuah) spoke Aramaic and some Hebrew...maybe even Latin. It is difficult to determine what Yeshuah's adoptive father taught him, other than carpentry. He may have been formally educated and I don't see why not. He would have had to learn how to read Hebrew as well as Aramaic. He also understood that the money-changers using the temple was wrong.
We read about Yeshuah (Jesus) when He was 15 years of age...then between about 15 and 30, we can only guess. It is only after age 30 that the events of His life get really interesting...as well as His teachings, instructions, and attitude toward humanity.

Yeshuah was an Emissary of God the Creator...made flesh so that He could be SEEN and heard by all. He was not God as some Christians believe, but the Son of God. I am tending toward the concept of Yeshuah as a Holy Angel, since it is the Holy Angels that are called the "Sons of God".
obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
"5. wasnt Eve ever educated in Guile ?" - Mike Massen
Eve had no reason to be educated in the art of "Guile". Being only the second female to be created, (Lilith being the first who was banished) Eve was destined to be the mother of all generations of humans. That was her role. Guile only appeared AFTER generations were born and there was competition among men. Their women learned the art of Guile after the Fallen Angels came to Earth and mated with human women. But that's another very interesting event that should be investigated further.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
"6. did moses' claimed god make satan knowing it would deceive Eve ?" - Mike Massen
God the Creator did create many Angels. They were the Sons of God, or Sons of the Creator. Satan was one of the Sons of God who later rebelled against the Creator...thinking that he could usurp everything that the Creator was and take His place, and be just as, or more, powerful than God. But Satan wasn't as powerful as he imagined himself to be, but only stupid, immoral and ignorant of his own lawful place among his peers. The great majority of the Holy Angels understood what had happened and were against Satan and his supporters for what he had thought he could do. Satan was destined to fail, of course.

Eve, OTOH, was naive and ignorant of such matters of temptation, envy, etc. She trusted Satan as she had trusted God and her husband, Adam...not understanding that it was unwise to put trust in the Devil. She could not comprehend that someone would try to make her disobey the Law.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
"7. did god disappear allowing satan to manipulate an innocent young girl ?" - Mike Massen
God left His two creations in the Garden and left EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS to NOT eat the fruit of that particular tree. God had created the Garden JUST FOR the man and then his mate, who was created afterward. If God didn't leave those instructions, you could say that it was HIS fault that His two creations failed to know enough not to eat the fruit. But He DID leave explicit instructions with them, and yet they failed to OBEY the LAW.
Satan took the form of a snake, lizard, or some other animal, and spoke to Eve. He lied, of course, and it is evident that Satan was outraged that the Creator had made the first man IN HIS OWN IMAGE. It is also quite evident that Satan was extremely envious of Adam and his wife. Why? Because God had shown Love for His two creations, while Satan was punished for his disobedience and anarchy against his Creator.
God didn't just disappear; He came back.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2016
Thanks for the sermon pussytard. But I suspect you're like all those debauched priests and nuns because in unguarded moments you tend to let your true nature show...
"Hey Blotto, how's your mama's pussy. I hear you've been giving her a good lickin and she still keeps on tickin, aye? Here puss puss. Oh BTW, how's your boyfriend Ritchieguy?..."
-You learn that language at Cal Tech or at the Rosy Meadows trailer park?

And you lie. Oh yes, yes you do lie pussytard.
"Oh, by the way, I have created two new user names for commenting...I will miss using my Obama_socks name"
-apart from that nonsense about you having an actual education that is.

God can tell if you've been bad or good you know. He has sharpened his skills since he had to ask Cain where his brother was.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
"8. punish all progeny of all creation for ever for uneducated failure of a parent ?" - Mike Massen
No Mike...not ALL progeny are punished. To punish everyone who don't deserve to be punished would be illogical and unreasonable.
Did you ever DISOBEY your own parent(s)? Did you get punished justifiably for your infraction of their law? Did your parent(s) give you a second, third, fourth chance to redeem yourself in their eyes? Did you ever LEARN from your errors and apply what you had learned as a child or teen to your OWN adult life?
It's similar to the punishment received from the Creator AFTER our physical body expires. But while we live, we are given a second, third, fourth, and more chances to REDEEM ourselves in the eyes of the Creator. We are given the chance to make choices and the Free Will to stand by the choices we make.
If you drive at 90 mph in a 50 mph stretch of road, you can expect to hear a siren and a cop car following you...AND get a ticket or jailed for DWI
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
"9. is gods action not used as parenting example ?" - Mike Massen
You've got THAT right. Ultimately, we are ALL children of our Creator. Our parents provide the genetics that make up our physical body. But the MIND/SOUL is housed within the head. It is only logical and reasonable for this to be so; it is the obvious place where the mind/Soul has the BEST access to the brain and the senses of sight (eyes), sound (ears), taste (tongue), touch (skin sensations), and smell (nose). There is NO better place for the Soul to reside. It also makes good sense SCIENTIFICALLY. You wouldn't place your computer down at your feet when you're using it, right? Maybe some would. LOL

Parenting is a wonderful vocation, and future generations depend so much on what kind of parenting we do now. It's the same with our Soul. What we do now determines what consequences our Soul will face. And what we do in our lifetime determines the kind of life we will have. Ultimately, WE are responsible.

obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
"10. can't *any* claim ever be qualified ?" - Mike Massen

If yu had lots of progeny why would you *only* communicate with one knowing it causes division which hurts the others ? - Mike Massen

Mike, The Creator is NOT made of matter/energy as we know it, so you can't see Him arriving and leaving the way you would like. It isn't IMPOSSIBLE to see God, but it is highly IMPROBABLE UNLESS you have implicit faith in Him and believe without ANY doubts whatsoever. Most humans find it extremely hard to believe if they can't detect God with their senses...or with sensitive instruments. He hears AND sees us...and when He is away from Earth or this quadrant, He is elsewhere taking care of "business". When He is away, His Holy Angels are in charge and they report on EVERYTHING...with nothing left out.
Satan is aware of this and is extremely JEALOUS of God. It's for this reason that Satan is busy tempting mankind and luring us to be evil. Satan is a Soul-Eater & biggest psychopath of all.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
I see that Theghostofotto1923 (SEXIST) still can't get over the loss of PussycatEyes and still thinks that I am her, even though I didn't register until 2012.
So how is your boyfriend, Otto? You still giving him head?
Otto will now copy what I said and keep it to show in other threads with the thought that I will run from Phys.org and never return as others have done.
Otto pollutes each and every thread in Phys.org with BS, especially where religion is mentioned

Remember this one, Otto?

TheGhostofOtto1923

1.6 / 5 (7)
May 08, 2013
Do women find men with fishing poles more attractive? Doubtful..
If they are hungry yes. Fish is only a metaphor for womanly smells you know.

http://medicalxpr...tar.html

Womanly smells, according to Otto is the smell of fish.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
Or how about THIS ONE, Otto?

In answer to Thomas Quinn:

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 /5 (32)
Jul 27, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923: You really are desperate to spin this into some construct where you might remotely be conceived to be right.

You chose your nickname appropriately - nazi reasoning: the facts count, but you decide what the facts are.
I showed you your crap was crap. I win. And my namesake happens to be otto preminger. Dont fucking call me a nazi.

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

LMAO...Otto Preminger. Otto LIES all the time about other people and is lying in this thread...pretending that his Nazi idol isn't Otto Skorzeny when his Profile for Theghostofotto1932 was Otto Skorzeny as first AND last name.

Otto is suffering from demonic possession, as well as Psychopathy and Dunning-Kruger Effect.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
Oh.. here's one where even antialias_physorg admits that Otto uses sock puppets...lots and lots of sock puppets:

antialias_physorg

2.5 /5 (13)
Jul 26, 2013
Yep, this is junk "science" for exactly all of the reasons Gmr has been discussing. And it's pathetic how McCarthy has his crew of sockpuppets here voting, especially given the scope. Wow, 10 votes!

Same here. (And most of the voters created since the article came out - go figure...along with the usual bunch of Otto's sockpuppets, of course.)

Seriously: None of us here are active in that particular field of research - an internet comment section is not 'peer review'. So why should he give 2 cents worth what is said here? That he does is rather revealing (only cranks care what the public thinks instead of getting their science right. Correctness of science is not decided by popular vote.Only ACCEPTANCE is decided by popular vote of SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD. But if you value acceptance over correctness..."
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2016
obama_socks Fails to answer even the First question
1. ... Very narrow arbitrary & impotent communicators ?
...only the One True God the Creator
Beg pardon ?
You missed point totally, whether it be Zeus/abramic trinity = same ie bad communicators.

You sidestepped issue - presumption humans don't write stories for; Status, Authority & Power over intellectually feeble & pliable

Facts re "Your claimed god"
a. can't verify ANYTHING in any religious work ever, completely silent
b. doesn't communicate better than humans
c. can't cross oceans
d. didnt educate Eve re satan & deception, Eve did what's expected, the innocent young trust !

Conclusion bible & other works are claims of groups of men (for power).
You miss point re Eve, before god made either he KNEW she would fail.
"Explicit instructions" don't work on the young Especially as temptation was designed to make them fail !

Your god acts as an impotent cheating devil, causes suffering & kills !

Stories.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
obama_socks with many failures of fact
The Earth was devoid of intelligent life forms until God created the Adam
No !
Eg. Dolphins, Apes, Cats - all have their intelligence for their survival and their social structures ie all the same in kind and(...)Or do you state intelligent animals came after humans ?

obama_socks claims
The first test of obedience to God was in the Garden of Eden
Test for who please ? - Mike Massen

LOL apparently you didn't bother to READ that answer I gave.

Yes, of course you, as an atheist would equate the instinctive need to survive by cats, dolphins and apes, with man and his "vastly superior intelligence". Perhaps you are right about man's intelligence being no better than that of animals. YOUR intelligence or lack of it certainly provides the evidence for it.

But then, why ask such questions when you are clearly hateful of any belief in a Creator. Just continue to live your life while doing what you do, and enjoy your time.

obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
@Mike Massen
It appears that you haven't a clue as to the messages I have given to you while answering all 10 of your questions. It isn't surprising and I recognize that your attempt at baiting was your opportunity to show Otto and his sock puppet, Captain StumpyDumpy that you are, indeed, one of their own.
I believe that you have become as intolerant and vapid in your mindset regarding those of us who love and cherish our faith and belief in the Creator, as Otto and your best friend, Captain Stumpy are. You join their ranks in the Phys.org Asshole Club and you are in excellent company with said assholes.
BTW, your queries and comments in general, are written poorly.
:P
syndicate_51
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
You cheeky little article.

You assume conflict.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2016
Hi @Mike, nice to see you're still around!

Physics inextricably tied to Math offers probabilistic extrapolation consistent with highly reliable well proven Quantum Mechanics (QM) ie You have a mobile ph, a PC, rely on GPS, drive a car, use thermometer, any medical tests Eg CAT/PET/MRI scans, pathology, blood tests, food made etc All of these are predicated upon Physics which is Very closely tied with mathematics at all levels !

BoP re combinatorial complexity of proven Physics with maths when equations run back offers high likelihood there's origin moment/beginning which we call the BB, those equations fit even down to a few microseconds with an immense elegance/consistency Eg via QM
It's not just QM, it's GRT as well. Also, GPS is mostly based on GRT. That's why Einstein was a genius.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2016
@obama_socks
Your response re all questions raised is just more claim on claim & unverifiable interpretations, so please focus on details as to my first question as its key.

You make claim god chooses who to communicate & when, which shows its capricious, that alone creates several problems & especially so as you seem to want simple answers ignoring many want power, focus:-

1. How can anyone distinguish claims in stories from any true communication of god ?
ie.
2. Stories & claims crafted before old testament (OT), what is used to tell which is true ?
3. Your god refuses to provide any means to verify *any* stories/claims of anyone ever,
so what metric should be used which to "follow" ?
4. Instead of "following" an old book from primitive times where psychology wasn't understood & most uneducated isnt it better to create an ethic illustrated by nature (presumably gods work) which has self-evident equanimity Eg The Golden Rule, ie from Greeks long before OT ?
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
Based on the content of the majority of comments written here, few are scientists or even amature scientists. Scientists don't attack people they attack ideas. And they don't use words like dumb, silly, crazy, or intentionally mess with a persons name or reputation. And they definitely don't bully others hoping that will convince anyone of anything.
Here is a great article found on lifescience that describes what I am trying to say.
http://www.livesc...not.html

- rderkis
Excellent link, thanks. I was impressed by this from the article:
So we (and "we" here means both scientists and the public) have a problem: the knowledge that scientists gain about the natural world stays relatively locked up within the scientific community, the scientists have no incentive to share it more broadly, and the public grows ever more distrustful of scientists. That reduces science funding opportunities, which means researchers..."
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
Biblically, the only sin that cannot be forgiven is complete rejection of God's grace

Wow.. you have a different bible (but that's not surprising).

Those seven deadly sins aren't found directly in the Bible, but can be extrapolated from various citations (ex: Proverbs 6:16-19). They were actually written by a fourth-century monk named Evagrius Ponticus.
New Testament, Paul supposedly said (Galatians 5:19-21) those that practice adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like" shall not inherit the Kingdom of God... So much for your guaranteed ticket through the pearly gates...

- Guy Underbridge
Do tell...as though that knowledge is a well-kept secret, (it isn't).
"those that practice adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness".
Which reminds me: Did you take the 5 to buy cheap wine & find a hooker yet?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2016
Da Schneib offers
It's not just QM, it's GRT as well. Also, GPS is mostly based on GRT
Indeed but, 1000 ch limit boring to repeat comments on whole Physics gamut & especially so when there are many who bark uneducated facile barbs :-(

BB paradigm ties oddly very well & most surprising re QM, from what I've seen recently even last 2 yrs Theoretical Physics has made significant strides, most scattered through papers some uni limited, touched on here, I'm 20% through...

https://www.youtu...O_kpZGk8

Da Schneib
That's why Einstein was a genius
Having looked at times/foundation laid by Gauss re Einstein's field equations based, I'd say genius to connect dots & collate but, did take more than decade to craft into useful form with good help. Just that imho, term Genius can be bandied with idolatrous overtones provoking retorts here, I think we can all have those moments & getting easier & careful use of the net ;-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (15) Mar 25, 2016
... those that practice adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like" shall not inherit the Kingdom of God....


Well maybe not, but it makes for a kick-ass party.

Noum,
Yes!! You DO have a sense of reality and humour!
Welcome back!:-)
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2016
obama_socks claims
..knowledge that scientists gain about the natural world stays relatively locked up within the scientific community, the scientists have no incentive to share it more broadly...
Complete utter crap, only uneducated seeking determinism fear Science but, less than a god !

Engineering is branch of implementation of so much Science, Eg My post re mobile phones, PCs, medical etc.

Papers published/reviewed, many free at universities for public, many online for free too - heard of Google Scholar ?

Huge failure/problem you've faced on key questions re rationale of the claims a (human oriented) god exists, you attack the person when you fail to address plain & simple failures of logic, you get nasty from insecurity !

Also because you're so emotionally attached to an old primitively written (manipulative) book, you miss immense statistical science as it conjuncts with psychology, it clearly shows your god is mere (emotional) claim (for power) :-(
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2016
- Guy Underbridge
Do tell...as though that knowledge is a well-kept secret, (it isn't).
"those that practice adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness".
Which reminds me: Did you take the 5 to buy cheap wine & find a hooker yet?

OS,
I'm finding it tuff to believe the disparity in this comment vs the previous one -
What is it YOU are drinking...?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
- Guy Underbridge
Do tell...as though that knowledge is a well-kept secret, (it isn't).
"those that practice adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness".
Which reminds me: Did you take the 5 to buy cheap wine & find a hooker yet?

OS,
I'm finding it tuff to believe the disparity in this comment vs the previous one -
What is it YOU are drinking...?
- Why'd
LOL you may have not been in the other thread when Sir Underbridge and I had our little joke. It was an amusing "back and forth" that was comical and enjoyable. You would have had to read it to get a good laugh out of it.
:)
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
obama_socks claims
..knowledge that scientists gain about the natural world stays relatively locked up within the scientific community, the scientists have no incentive to share it more broadly...
Complete utter crap, only uneducated seeking determinism fear Science but, less than a god !

Also because you're so emotionally attached to an old primitively written (manipulative) book, you miss immense statistical science as it conjuncts with psychology, it clearly shows your god is mere (emotional) claim (for power) :-(
- MM
What? That quote came from the link that was offered by rderkis.
Do you understand the definition of "relatively locked-up".

relatively |ˈrelətivlē|
adverb [ sentence adverb ]
in relation, comparison, or proportion to something else: it is perfectly simple, relatively speaking, to store a full catalog entry on magnetic tape.
• [ as submodifier ] viewed in comparison with something else rather than absolutely.

Does that help any?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
@WhydG
Curious?
Here is the link to the thread. It's down near the bottom, beginning with my little soliloquy re theoretical scientists.
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2016
Da Schneib offers
It's not just QM, it's GRT as well. Also, GPS is mostly based on GRT
Indeed but, 1000 ch limit boring to repeat comments on whole Physics gamut & especially so when there are many who bark uneducated facile barbs :-(
Still, accuracy counts. ;)

BB paradigm ties oddly very well & most surprising re QM, from what I've seen recently even last 2 yrs Theoretical Physics has made significant strides, most scattered through papers some uni limited, touched on here, I'm 20% through...
The biggest current question is whether we can see B-mode polarizations in the cosmic microwave background attributable to gravity waves from inflation. This took a hit from B-mode polarizations from interactions with galactic dust in the plane of the Milky Way. We're still looking for them, but the recent LIGO detection of the first gravity waves lends some fuel to the search.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2016
[contd]
Schneib
That's why Einstein was a genius
Having looked at times/foundation laid by Gauss re Einstein's field equations based, I'd say genius to connect dots & collate but, did take more than decade to craft into useful form with good help. Just that imho, term Genius can be bandied with idolatrous overtones provoking retorts here, I think we can all have those moments & getting easier & careful use of the net ;-)
Gauss was a genius too. And remember that Einstein didn't just invent relativity; he also proved quantum mechanics with his photoelectricity paper showing that absorption of energy was quantized just like Planck had shown with emission, with his quantum theory (and note that the photoelectric effect was what he won his Nobel Prize in Physics for-- not relativity).
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2016
... those that practice adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like" shall not inherit the Kingdom of God....
Well maybe not, but it makes for a kick-ass party.

See Noum? Even *I* gave you a 5 for that!
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2016
Please correct opinion
@Mike_M
lets break it down: i said
What does a court call a comment or statement of proposed fact that cannot be substantiated by evidence?
*A LIE*
for starters, please note that i said, very specifically "of proposed fact that cannot be substantiated"

this means that if you propose something that you claim is *fact* then you are required to be able to prove said fact by methodology and evidence in court (usually under cross)

if you cannot substantiate it as factual with evidence or a repeatable methodology like the scientific method, then it is not a "fact", thus it can be labeled as a colloquial "lie" [my statement above] and even be punished under law as perjury (etc)

therefore if the court can punish someone for perjury because of a "statement of fact" that can't be validated, then it is a "lie" (my term is intentionally colloquial)

and i am not otto etc, so leave that crap out of it - thanks
rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2016
I will tell you a old mans (69) story. I don't think most of you will understand the point but I will tell it anyways.
When I was in vietnam at a hospital recovering from malaria. There were five rocks(Korean solders) laughing there heads off at a cock roach climbing a wall. I mean they were rolling in the dirt laughing. I looked at them and thought what fools, what idiots. There was nothing funny about it. And felt sorry for their ignorance.
It was only later that I was able to reflect on it and realize that I was the one that was missing missing out. I could not see the humor, I was the one that was not having fun and living in the moment, not taking life in and appreciating all aspects of it.
I say to you that not feeling the joy of the holy ghost is a GREAT loss to you! No matter how you attack me or attack what I say, it is you that is missing out on one of the finest things man is capable of feeling.
And if you have never felt it how can you say I am wrong.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2016
There were five rocks(Korean solders)
@rderkis
they're called ROK's (not "rocks") for a reason - South Korea is officially the Republic of Korea [ROK]
I say to you that not feeling the joy of the holy ghost is a GREAT loss to you
and i say to you that the immense joy & awe of living in reality and seeing the world for what it is, while living with it, and coming to understand it through SCIENCE which is built upon the shoulders of great genius throughout time is a far greater loss to you than your perceived loss to me is

no matter how you attack me or what i say, it is you that is missing out on the wonders of reality $ science & the finest knowledge that many men & women died obtaining, fighting against the controls of the church & religions, just so we can live in a technological society that could never have existed under church rule (this is proven fact, b/c it never DID exist under church rule... only when church was taken out of the equation)
rderkis
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
I am a little confused by your reply. I was 18 when that happened and we called them (probably wrongly) Rocks.
I was not a Christen then and even now am probably more of a science geek then you. I program computers in Assembly, mixed language programming, pascal, visual basic and a couple others. I really enjoy programing c+ on the arduino microcontroller. While not my primary occupation, I have sold a few programs, I have written. I have a RCX400 14" research grade telescope, on a home made trolley, in my garage , along with a 4'X4' cnc plasma table and a bridgeport mill I converted to cnc. Being 69, I am sure I said some of this stuff wrong please forgive me. When I was much younger the Bowling Green Phy department on a one to one interview tested my IQ and rated it at 159. I am not bragging because I doubt it's 100 anymore.
In other words as far as the science world, been there done that. Can you say that as far as the holy ghost goes or have you never experienced it?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
I will tell you a old mans (69) story. I don't think most of you will understand the point but I will tell it anyways.
When I was in vietnam at a hospital recovering(...)I was the one that was not having fun and living in(...).
I say to you that not feeling the joy of the holy ghost is a GREAT loss to you! No matter how you attack me or attack what I say, it is you that is missing out on one of the finest(...).
And if you have never felt it how can you say I am wrong.
- rderkis
You are not wrong. You have your beliefs and they have theirs. You're not going to change their minds and there's no reason to change yours for anyone. Just keep believing and have faith while leading a good life the way you've been doing. They may try to persecute you for your beliefs, but never take it personal and never change what you feel is right for YOU. And you can take comfort in knowing that you have done all that you can to ensure a good outcome for your immortal Soul.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
@ rderkis
A friendly warning for you. Do NOT give Stumpy or anyone else your private OR public information. That would be an unwise choice that you might regret, as so many others have regretted.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2016
I was 18 when that happened and we called them (probably wrongly) Rocks.
@rderkis
pronounced the same, but officially ROK - as in ROK Marines, or ROK infantry
it can be confusing to americans - i just thought you might want to know where the term comes from (served in Aco 5/5 ADA, 2ID Camp Casey- DMZ)
even now am probably more of a science geek then you
maybe. who knows. it is all i do anymore. read books, studies, internet. take classes. meh
Can you say that as far as the holy ghost goes or have you never experienced it?
experienced a delusional euphoria due to an unknown experience that i attributed to a deity?
yes... but then i learned about really cool science stuff like how a fire acts and it eventually lead me to answers

I don't care about anyone's faith - but a "religion" is a set of rules that is by design used to control others and train (& enforce) bigotry and prejudice in people
faith is harmless - religion is dangerous
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2016
@rderkis cont'd
Can you say
also note, i am not typical in that i grew up all over the world, so i have personally experienced a lot of religions most people only know about by reading, from Buddhists to Muslims, etc - they're all the same, really

what i see is that people gravitate to what they see are "peers" or "friends" but they don't always consider the implications of the structured tenets of religion over their "faith", which is what i consider the dangerous part

like o_socks above: because i proved him to be a blatant chronic liar, he now has said all kinds of stuff (lies, proven) and follows me around spewing hate

THAT is the ultimate reason of religion: to remove thought & critical thinking while forcing people to rely upon the "leadership" for rote dissemination of prejudice & hate over logic
This is demonstrated far better by O_s than i could possibly talk about, so just watch his posts

i prefer that which can be validated (science)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2016
...the holy ghost is
@rderkis
there are things called anecdotal evidence, and they're not science, right?

take my post above: it is anecdote & claims, right?

however, when i put forth evidence to the claims (like this: http://phys.org/n...ich.html - search for -"you had three other socks and forgot to change profiles")

Now it is a validated claim with evidence proving that o_s is a chronic liar!
Evidence over "feeling"

this is important - b/c religions and faiths can make you "feel" things, but are those feelings actually attributed to the cause you think you gave them?

are you sure it isn't a biological reaction to adrenaline and perhaps a cognitive dissonance rather than a "holy ghost"?

the human mind needs "faith"
We're the survivors of the human on the Savannah who ran when the grass moved even though they didn't see a predator

delusion is strong in us
that is why science is so important
evidence over feeling always
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
@rderkis cont'd
Can you say


like o_socks above: because i proved him to be a blatant chronic liar, he now has said all kinds of stuff (lies, proven) and follows me around spewing hate

THAT is the ultimate reason of religion: to remove thought & critical thinking while forcing people to rely upon the "leadership" ...prejudice & hate over logic

i prefer that which can be validated (science)
- StumpRump
Ahhh so now you are lying yet again, as usual. Since you are Otto's sock puppet nobody should be surprised. It is YOU that has been following me into many threads just to question my posts and demand that I give you proof so that you can validate what I've said.
You are one sick M-F and your mental illnesses are proven in every thread where you attack commenters for their opinions. You pretend to require validation but the ONLY proof of your own assertion only come from your "cut & paste from Wiki and search engines and YouTube, never from your OWN knowledge base
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
You have proved time and time again that you are Otto and many other commenters agree on that estimation of your mental illnesses that drive you to commit gross violations against the commenters of this website. You behave as though you OWN Phys.org with your constant and insane demands for validation of what you consider as "claims". Opinions are not "claims", except in your sick mind that is what you have decided they are. You have stolen identities from commenters and you would try the same thing on me. You are pissed off because I didn't play your game and that I know exactly WHAT you are. You have stolen gkam's identity and tried to control him as you have done with antialias and several others. YOU are a wicked Soul-Eater and you hate it when I have warned people against giving you their personal and public information that you will use against them. You published gkam's private info in Photobucket. You should be sent to jail for that misdemeanor...identity theft.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2016
"As the world becomes increasingly digitized, more people are using the personal information of others to commit crimes such as identity theft. "
"The unauthorized use, or even possession, of someone else's personal identifying information can result in a charge of identity theft."
Everyone who reads this: know that CaptainStumpy is an Identity Thief several times over. Stump has displayed gkam's personal identity, including his Social Security number, full name, address, phone number, email address and military records ON THE INTERNET in Photobucket, never bothering to redact that private information, thus rendering gkam a potential victim of wide spread dissemination of his identity over the internet. There are criminal charges for this type of crime, and it is time for all of Stump's victims to come forth and accuse him and justifiably so, that he may be stopped from doing it to others.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
obama_socks

1 / 5 (2)
Feb 29, 2016
- gkam
Don't you get it yet? Stumpy, Uncle Ira, and possibly Piss1 are ALL Theghostofotto1923
@obutthead
you tried this already back when you had three other socks and forgot to change profiles to respond to me accordingly... then got banhammered for it
I am not otto... and i can prove otto was correct in that you PM'ed me when we still had PM's here... answering questions from multiple socks... even admitting to some

just because you got outed as a sock and liar doesn't mean everyone else is one too
you were the one banhammered, not i... or even otto... remember?
LOL

BAKOON outed you as well... gonna call me him next?
LMFAO
- Stump
Nope. None of those were me...and I have never sent any PM to you. YOU ARE ONE OF OTTO'S SOCK PUPPETS. And so was BAKOON.
I HAVE ONLY HAD THIS ONE USER NAME. SO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS LYING,
ROFLOL

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
FROM STUMPRUMP's link where he thinks that BAKOON is me...and BAKOON thought that Captain Stumpy is MY sock puppet. LMAO
It was BAKOON WHO SENT A PM TO STUMPYDUMP...not me. But Stump has INSISTED on it in many threads IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS WRONG.
These lies will get repeated in many other threads by StumpRump over and over. His wickedness continues.

BAKOON1.8 / 5 (20) Sep 24, 2013
Like I told your sockpuppet Captain Stumpy over PM: If you can post without me knowing or caring it is you, feel free. I win.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Benni
4 / 5 (16) Mar 26, 2016
You pretend to require validation but the ONLY proof of your own assertion only come from your "cut & paste from Wiki and search engines and YouTube, never from your OWN knowledge base


@ o_s...this is because this retired Texas firefighter has never seen a math problem with a trigonometric function in it that he could solve. Using Copy & Paste to his favorite links, he somehow imagines that makes him as smart as those here who can do this math, then when that fails the name calling & foul mouthed profanity starts & he then imagines his IQ jumps 50 points.

These divorced old men, whose kids probably can't even stand being around them, are totally void of anything meaningful in life, so they come here imagining they're making a difference by mingling with those who are smarter than they are & embarking on litanies of name calling & foul mouthed innuendo in an attempt to make themselves relevant, in short, they resent smarter people who won't accept hem as relevant.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2016
There is no conflict between the sicence and the faith in the Creator of the universe and all created inteligent beings in it.

There is conflict between the pagan system that worship worthless idols, the most popular among them is the Golden Calf, and the truth of eternal, unchangeable and holy Creator Who creates and sustains life in the universe.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2016
How can anyones NON-belief in god be based on science? Correct me if I am wrong here, but science knows probably less than 1% of the universe. Science knows nothing about dark mater, nor dark energy. And that's about 95% of the universe. Of the last 5%, I doubt we know more than 5% of that 5%.

rderkis

-which has nothing to do with the conflict of science against religion. Example: the scientific evidence that the Earth is very old contradicts the young-earth creationist religion. You don't need to explain dark matter to explain there being either a god or no god as those two issues (dark matter and god ) are totally irrelevant to each other. It would make no difference if science explained less than 0.0001% of everything; the fact will remain it contradicts various religious dogmas.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2016
There is no conflict between the sicence and the faith in the Creator of the universe and all created inteligent beings in it.
....

viko_mx

Haven't you heard of that science called evolutionary biology?

https://en.wikipe..._biology

The evidence of that science, if no other, clearly contradicts we and other species being created by an intelligent being as evolution is not an intelligent being thus your above statement is clearly false.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2016
You pretend to require validation but the ONLY proof of your own assertion only come from your "cut & paste from Wiki and search engines and YouTube, never from your OWN knowledge base


@ o_s...this is because this retired Texas firefighter has never seen a math problem with a trigonometric function in it that he could solve. Using Copy & Paste to his favorite links, he somehow imagines that makes him as smart as those here who can do this math, then when that fails the name calling & foul mouthed profanity starts & he then imagines his IQ jumps 50 points.

These divorced old men, whose kids probably can't even stand being around them, are totally void of anything meaningful in life, so they come here imagining (...) they resent smarter people who won't accept hem as relevant.
- Benni
There aren't many commenters who are as adept in understanding and perceiving of evil "persons" who roam the internet and then settle where most atheists congregate, (cont'd)
obama_socks
2 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2016

(cont'd)
@Benni
There is far more to it than that, I assure you.
Phys.org is one of the most perfect websites for the entity called Captain Stumpy, (who is another product of Theghostofotto1923), to "Lure and Catch" as many victims as possible by demanding "validation for claims". The entity prefers that physical proof such as documents are provided, as was done with gkam when gkam emailed his personal docs to Stump because his pride was hurt and his honor called into question.
This is a famous ploy, and another name for it is called, the "snares of the Devil". Atheists and Agnostics in this site and elsewhere don't like reading about Satan because they subconsciously regard it as an attack on their personal choices and agendas. But those choices don't alter the fact that Satan has been freed and finds glory among atheists. He will gather to him the Souls that atheists refuse to believe they have. It's just a matter of time...and the time is getting shorter.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
Oh BTW, I DID create two extra User names...but I never got to use them in Phys.org. Instead I used them to comment in News forums to assess current events and their possible outcomes.
And to argue against others who are obvious Communists.
So here I am, back on Phys.org with just ONE User name. Stumpy has accused me several times already of being Otto's sock puppet, BAKOON. The BAKOON sock puppet (who is actually Otto) took the opportunity to attack me in the same way Otto and its other sock puppets have done.
Otto is SO PISSED at me for outing him as the grand puppeteer of Phys.org. Otto/Stumpy has in its possession the personal documents of several commenters who were foolish enough to provide it. Otto now controls and commands them.
Isn't that right, Otto/Stumpy? you old evil one, you. LMAO
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2016
Atheists and Agnostics in this site and elsewhere don't like reading about Satan..

...because they generally find reading about any load of religious crap boring regardless of which part of the loads of religious crap. Do you not ike reading about Santa? If so, why not?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
There is no conflict between the sicence and the faith in the Creator of the universe and all created inteligent beings in it.
....

viko_mx

Haven't you heard of that science called evolutionary biology?

https://en.wikipe..._biology

The evidence of that science, if no other, clearly contradicts we and other species being created by an intelligent being as evolution is not an intelligent being thus your above statement is clearly false.
- humy
Viko is correct, although he doesn't seem to quite understand that the progress of life forms can't happen without those life forms evolving to suit their current environment where current environment would be hostile to their continuing existence if those life forms don't change enough in order to ADAPT to new situations. Evolution is just a change brought on by expediency, otherwise - an extinction.
The Creator was/is the first Scientist/Engineer. ALL SCIENCE comes FROM the Creator. Fact.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
@ humy
From your Wikipedia link re Evolutionary Biology...it clearly states:
"
Evolutionary biology is the subfield of biology that studies the evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth starting from a single origin of life."

Those very words, "..diversity of life on Earth STARTING FROM A SINGLE ORIGIN OF LIFE."
are a CLEAR indication that the ORIGIN OF LIFE didn't just come from a gathering of all the right molecules in one place. Those molecules were LIFELESS even when taken as a grouping that had POTENTIAL FOR LIFE. Within the vast waters of the early Earth, molecules don't decide to come together automatically and interact with each other and suddenly a life form arises with a full complement of SURVIVAL TECHNIQUES, THE DESIRE TO PROCREATE, and THE POTENTIAL TO EVOLVE. There was first a GRAND DESIGN, and then that design was ENERGIZED INTO LIFE.
Scientists are presently attempting to duplicate the methods to propagate life from dead matter.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
Atheists and Agnostics in this site and elsewhere don't like reading about Satan..

...because they generally find reading about any load of religious crap boring regardless of which part of the loads of religious crap. Do you not ike reading about Santa? If so, why not?
- humy
St. Nicholas is said to have been a real person who did charitable works and enjoyed GIVING as opposed to only taking. He is associated with Christmas to encourage gift giving. I didn't personally know him, did YOU?
Now if you said, "the Easter Bunny", of course that is entirely fiction, but is also associated with GIVING. It is also associated with pagan ideals of "bringing forth anew", simply because of the fertility of rabbits. That it was also associated with the "RESURRECTION OF CHRIST", is tied in with NEW LIFE FROM THE OLD.
Oh BTW...Satan does exist and has existed since before this quadrant of the Universe was DESIGNED, created and evolved. HE LIVES!!
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
Atheists and Agnostics in this site and elsewhere don't like reading about Satan..

...because they generally find reading about any load of religious crap boring regardless of which part of the loads of religious crap. Do you not ike reading about Santa? If so, why not?
- humy
It's OK....NOBODY is trying to change your outlook, your beliefs or unbeliefs, or trying to CONVERT you to having a belief in God the Creator and to have absolute Faith in Him.
You and Billions of other humans ALL have the ability to make choices, due to the Free Will that the Creator provided for you. FREE WILL IS A PART OF BEING TESTED so that certain things about you may be determined. Your life is being observed AND recorded without you being aware of it. This is all a part of THE PLAN. Even Satan is fully aware of this ongoing testing. Satan had failed the tests already long ago and was imprisoned for ONE THOUSAND YEARS. But now he's back, and his time to exist grows short.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2016
Oh BTW...Satan does exist and has existed since before this quadrant of the Universe was DESIGNED, created and evolved. HE LIVES!!
huh...i was going to ask where your evidence is for this but (snicker)... then i figured it out: he is hiding in the clay right?
Your life is being observed AND recorded without you being aware of it
so, your god is a perv?
mine says your god is a fraud... and i can prove mine exists
you can see her in the background of these IRL vid's
https://www.youtu...gntMDHh0

https://www.youtu...mVBe8Q5c

Her name is Wakinyan Tanka and she says you're lying
(of course, i already proved that... but what are details when you can flood with your religious rantings, right?)

Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (20) Mar 26, 2016
@ o_s...this is because this retired Texas firefighter has never seen a math problem with a trigonometric function in it that he could solve. Using Copy & Paste to his favorite links, he somehow imagines that makes him as smart as those here who can do this math, then when that fails the name calling & foul mouthed profanity starts & he then imagines his IQ jumps 50 points.

These divorced old men, whose kids probably can't even stand being around them, are totally void of anything meaningful in life, so they come here imagining they're making a difference by mingling with those who are smarter than they are & embarking on litanies of name calling & foul mouthed innuendo in an attempt to make themselves relevant, in short, they resent smarter people who won't accept hem as relevant.

Personally? I find those who THINK they are smarter because they can spell "trigonometric" or "differential equation" - yet can't do them, immensely humorous.

Just sayin'.."
Benni
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 26, 2016
Personally? I find those who THINK they are smarter because they can spell "trigonometric" or "differential equation" yet can't do them, immensely humorous. Just sayin'..


Of course you're "just sayin'"..what is there left for you to say after you've reached the limits of the capacity of your science & math skills & they are so demonstrably shallow? You come here, along with the others of the Rant Brigade, peddling your name calling hatred against those of us who professionally engage in science that will forever be far beyond your comprehension.

Those of you in the Rant Brigade are the ones who always start it with a litany of foul mouthed name calling, then when someone, such as myself, challenge your foul mouths to a comparison of my math skills to yours, that becomes the greatest offense any respondent to your foul mouths can commit. Your name calling foul mouths attest to your inabilities to engage with others in socializing with others in fields of science.
my2cts
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2016
@Benni
your science & math skills & they are so demonstrably shallow

Coming from a total science ignoramus like you this is practically a compliment.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2016
Satan had failed the tests already long ago and was imprisoned for ONE THOUSAND YEARS. But now he's back, and his time to exist grows short.

Your almighty god had his son killed and blamed everyone else for it. Since that day he has remained silent, presumably out of shame.
And what sick pervert has a garden with a snake and two naked people?
Oh wait, you, o_pervert, would entertain such an idea.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2016
Those very words, "..diversity of life on Earth STARTING FROM A SINGLE ORIGIN OF LIFE."
are a CLEAR indication that ...

No they are not. You are lying again. That should come a no surprise to anyone.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2016
@ o_s...this is because this retired Texas firefighter has never seen a math problem with a trigonometric function in it that he could solve. Using Copy & Paste to his favorite links, he somehow imagines that makes him as smart as those here who can do this math, then when that fails the name calling & foul mouthed profanity starts & he then imagines his IQ jumps 50 points.

These divorced old men(...)come here imagining they're making a difference by mingling with those who are smarter than they are & embarking on litanies of name calling & foul mouthed innuendo in an attempt to make themselves relevant, in short, they resent smarter people who won't accept hem as relevant.

Personally? I find those who THINK they are smarter because they can spell "trigonometric" or "differential equation" - yet can't do them, immensely humorous.

Just sayin'.."
- Why'd
That is an apt description of Cap StumpRump. You are catching on, kid. Honing your observational skills, eh?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2016
Satan had failed the tests already long ago and was imprisoned for ONE THOUSAND YEARS. But now he's back, and his time to exist grows short.

Your almighty god had his son killed and blamed everyone else for it. Since that day he has remained silent, presumably out of shame.
And what sick pervert has a garden with a snake and two naked people?
Oh wait, you, o_pervert, would entertain such an idea.
- my2cts
LMAO so Piss1 is also my2cts. Now WHICH one is the puppet and which one is the puppeteer I wonder.
You give your secret away so easily, Piss1/my2cts.
Uh...how do you know that it was a snake, Pissy? Were you there?
HAD His Son Killed? Nope, it was humans who did the killing, and it was humans who DEMANDED THAT HE BE KILLED. I will now add your sock to my list of members of the Phys.org Asshole Club.
Phil DePayne
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2016
I think religion is ok unless it harms people, i.e. Jim Jones.
If Scientology works for you great. Or join a cult. It's a free country, founded by Deists and Masons, with a few Puritans and other Protestants, and later an addition of Catholics. I think that many people from antiquity through the Middle Ages would have still been ignorant of science even without widespread Christianity. Christianity adopted "scientific" thought of Greece and the Ptolemaic period, which would have existed and not been challenged even in a pagan Middle Ages. Perhaps Islamic science would save the day? Well, that would be a stretch. Now, science has reduced the importance of religion, which is evident in a decline of participation of religion throughout the world. Instead of arguing with a philosophy that is not based on rationality, note that they have sowed the seeds of their own destruction by carelessness. Karma is a B***h!
obama_socks
2 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2016
I think religion is ok unless it harms people, i.e. Jim Jones.
(...)free country, founded by Deists and Masons, (..)I think that many people from antiquity through the Middle Ages would have still been ignorant of science even without widespread Christianity. Christianity adopted "scientific" thought of Greece and the Ptolemaic period, which would have existed and not been challenged even in a pagan Middle Ages. Perhaps Islamic science would save the day? Well, that would be a stretch. Now, science has reduced the importance of religion, which is evident in a decline of participation of religion throughout the world. Instead of arguing with a philosophy that is not based on rationality,...

- Phil
You DO have a point, in that the ties to a 'religious framework' are unraveling, but only through materialistic expediency, not due to loss of faith/belief. Scandalous behavior also hurts the framework of ORGANIZED religion but not the BASIC tenets of faith/belief. Those remain
snoosebaum
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2016
@ mike Masson , re BB ,yes i know the math etc is all wonderful but the result makes no sense, and it's not written in stone , Roger Penrose who wrote the tome ' the laws of the universe' has a theory called the conformal universe that does make sense.

snoosebaum
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2016
@ mike Masson , re BB ,yes i know the math etc is all wonderful but the result makes no sense, and it's not written in stone , Roger Penrose who wrote the tome ' the laws of the universe' has a theory called the conformal universe that does make sense.

Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (18) Mar 27, 2016
Of course you're "just sayin'"..what is there left for you to say after you've reached the limits of the capacity of your science & math skills & they are so demonstrably shallow?

LOL.. the pot caling the kettle black...:-)
You come here, along with the others of the Rant Brigade, peddling your name calling hatred against those of us who professionally engage in science that will forever be far beyond your comprehension. .

Not a member of a "rant" brigade. Even "rantors" will tell you that. I get along with them because I'm not an idiot who says "differential equations" without a clue.
Show ONE time where I called names.
You professionally engage in science? Bout as much as I do, I'm sure.
My comprehension? Your idiotic rant is beyond it.
Fortunately, it is still light years ahead of yours for everything else...
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (18) Mar 27, 2016
There is conflict between the pagan system that worship worthless idols, the most popular among them is the Golden Calf, .

I guess you mean that concrete bull statue on Wall Street...
Why isn't there a bear, too?
someone11235813
2.5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2016
It's easy to look back now but it was only with the discovery of radioactive decay that the age of the Earth was known to be 4 billion years, even Eddington, (or was it Kelvin?) calculated that the Sun could not be more than 70 million years old, so what were people supposed to think. The concept of curved spacetime in not something that would readily spring to mind to explain action at a distance.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2016
@Benni
your science & math skills & they are so demonstrably shallow

Coming from a total science ignoramus like you this is practically a compliment.


Now you imagine your IQ is 50 points higher simply because you went on another one of your foul mouthed name calling rants.............but you still can't solve Differential Equations, I can & that is the defining difference between myself & the Rant Brigade that lives here on PO.
aragy
2 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2016
Isn't that discussiom missing some very basic definitions? How can you argue about existence of god/gods without defining what you understand under this term?

If I understand it well no church specifies what god really is, what is its (his? her?) power and how we should visualize it. Am I right? Have you ever asked your priest this very basic question? What was the answer?

Two variants occured to me as I was growing up:
1) God is wise kind old man - inteligent being with its own opinions - who knows everything what happens and (or maybe because) he controls everything he wants? That was impression I got as a child from what I heard from my catholic relatives.

2) It is just name for any very fundamental ever existing residuum of unknown that science hasnt discovered yet and never will. Maybe randomness of quantum world?

I believe answer to this leads to definition what faith is and consequently to rationality of practicing particular religion.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2016
Personally? I find those who THINK they are smarter because they can spell "trigonometric" or "differential equation" - yet can't do them, immensely humorous.

Just sayin'.."
- Why'd
That is an apt description of Cap StumpRump. You are catching on, kid. Honing your observational skills, eh?


o_s also observes Why'd is finally honing his observational skills. Yeah Why'd, you have been observing that the Stump has at least learned that TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTIONS & DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS are tools of science & really do exist, he never heard of such math concepts until he came here to PO & read about them.

By the way Why'd, as you continue taking whacks at the math & science skills of those such as myself, what are your accomplishments within the skill sets of the profession? And by all means please, tell us again about your artistic talents & give us the link to your website where you advertise your wares so we can believe you're even telling the truth about that.
Azrael
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2016
This makes a good deal of sense, and I'm happy to see the comment section has yet to explode with both sides professing their superiority and bashing each other.

Faith and Science both have their merits, and their assumed mutual-exclusivity by people with extreme views on either side is a falsehood.

They Both CANNOT Coexist, Period.


Because you say so?
matt_s
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2016
but you still can't solve Differential Equations


as you continue taking whacks at the math & science skills of those such as myself


I think I speak for several people with this answer: because you talk a big game about your ability to solve differential equations, yet when asked, you were unfamiliar with basic nomenclature (ODE). Why'd doesn't sit there and talk a big game about how he can solve DE, that rests squarely on you, and you've made yourself look extremely foolish in that area in the past.

Moreover, anyone with a computer can solve DE, be it analytically (if even possible) or via numerical simulation. It really isn't something to be so proud of?

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2016
@Matt
Thanks for pointing this out!
let's add some links to help folk!
http://www.wolfra...7efd3f2a

http://onsolver.c...tion.php

https://www.symbo...lculator

http://calculator...tor.html

http://calculator...tor.html

https://www.easyc...ator.php

some good questions to consider:
If it takes 4 seconds to type in and search for the above, why can't benji solve an ODE?

why can't she comprehend basic terminology used in math if she's so proficient?

with easy access to free calc's... why can't she actually demonstrate math proficiency ...be it basic math or ODE's? (below)
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

http://phys.org/n...als.html
Zzzzzzzz
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 27, 2016
Arguing with psychos is a lot like wrestling with a Billy goat. You aren't going to win, the Billy goat loves it, and when you're done everyone smells the same.........
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2016
@ mike Masson , re BB ,yes i know the math etc is all wonderful but the result makes no sense
Why not? We look around us and pretty much all the billions and trillions of galaxies we see out there are receding from one another, faster and faster. If we run that backwards, they all approach each other and then smash together; run it forwards again and there's your Big Bang.

What part of that doesn't make sense? It's just based on what we see.
obama_socks
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2016
Personally? I find those who THINK they are smarter because they can spell "trigonometric" or "differential equation" - yet can't do them, immensely humorous.

Just sayin'.."
- Why'd
That is an apt description of Cap StumpRump. You are catching on, kid. Honing your observational skills, eh?


o_s also observes Why'd is finally honing his observational skills. Yeah Why'd, you have been observing that the Stump has at least learned that TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTIONS & DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS are tools of science & really do exist, he never heard of such math concepts until...

By the way Why'd(...) what are your accomplishments within the skill sets of the profession? And please, tell us again about your artistic talents & give us the link to your website where you advertise your wares so we can believe you're even telling the truth about that.
- Benni

WhydG has displayed the link to his business in another thread. I think Whyd is here for the amusement mostly
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2016
There is conflict between the pagan system that worship worthless idols, the most popular among them is the Golden Calf, .

I guess you mean that concrete bull statue on Wall Street...
Why isn't there a bear, too?
- WhydG
LMAO Is the symbolism lost to you? Or are you just being facetious? Wall Street = money, investors, economy, wealth, JOBS, trade, earnings, Capital, taxable revenue, etc.
Big difference between the bull and bear market. Heavy volatility these days under the Obama administration and its stupid and destructive policies. But that's another topic.
Benni
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2016
I think I speak for several people with this answer: because you talk a big game about your ability to solve differential equations, yet when asked, you were unfamiliar with basic nomenclature (ODE). Why'd doesn't sit there and talk a big game about how he can solve DE, that rests squarely on you, and you've made yourself look extremely foolish in that area in the past.


......and you see, once again you just never get it. It's the demented mind set of the onset of NAME CALLING & PROFANITY that precipitates my challenges only to the FOUL MOUTHED such as the Stump, VietVet, Ira, Mike M. etc.

The NAME CALLING proclivity for those engaging in this behavior provoke my challenges to their math skills. If those same ones had never started with the NAME CALLING & PROFANITY they would never have been countered by my challenges.

As for you Matt, your silence for the NAME CALLING routine that goes on here is YOUR CONSENT, it is your identification with whom you pander.
Benni
4.4 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2016
Moreover, anyone with a computer can solve DE, be it analytically (if even possible) or via numerical simulation. It really isn't something to be so proud of?


with easy access to free calc's... why can't she actually demonstrate math proficiency ...be it basic math or ODE's?


Two absolutely laughable quips, just try taking those calculators into a Calculus exam at any accredited college & see how far you get with the prof.

People like the two of you would be so lost for attempting something like solving the derivation for the area of a circle. Even right now, if someone unexpectedly popped a Differential Equation in front of your faces, you would have to run to a WikiPedia site to identify what it was you are even looking at, it's the reason none of you ever study the actual text of Einstein's Special or General Relativity, you can't identify the math much less comprehend it's derivations...........OK, more NAME CALLING?
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2016
It's easy to look back now but it was only with the discovery of radioactive decay that the age of the Earth was known to be 4 billion years, even Eddington, (or was it Kelvin?) calculated that the Sun could not be more than 70 million years old, so what were people...to think. The concept of curved spacetime in not something that(...)
- someone11235813
The ancients had no concept of Time in the billions of years. Not so much that they were ignorant of the fact, but the maths, instruments, and the basic education of such hadn't been invented and conceptualized.
There is also the evolution of Events as Time continues on. If the Bible were to be written NOW, the writer(s) WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION everything that is scientifically known, as well as the concepts of the Creation and the Creator. Materialism would most likely take precedence due to anthropocentrics. But the concept of Spirituality would continue to be investigated & sought after as a human need.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2016
Arguing with psychos
@Zzzzz
yeah, you're right.
but someone also has to point out the problems with those folk... like the below quotes
...something about ODE whatever that is?
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...ood.html

the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...als.html

plagiarized yahoo
http://phys.org/n...dio.html

all that is required for stupidity to flourish is for educated people to stand idly by and allow the up-rating and posting of the above type gibberish as evidence of science or engineering

but not every post has to be refuted when you can demonstrate that a person is incapable of comprehending basic science or math, IMHO!
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
Isn't that discussiom missing some very basic definitions? How can you argue about existence of god/gods without defining what you understand under this term?

If I understand it well no church specifies what god really is, what is its (his? her?) power and how we should visualize it. Am I right? Have you ever asked your priest this very basic question? What was the answer?
- aragy

The Old Testament and the NT were written by educated men who had been provided by Holy Angels with the knowledge of past events and concepts wrt Hebraic history, the history of the Earth and the advent of man wrt the known Universe in those times, and the knowledge of the unseeable aspects of the Soul that is spiritual, rather than physical. The Power of God exists & the rationality of it is amplified by the discoveries by scientific research of that which was/is, long existed before the Earth, Sun and the entire Solar System came into being. Priests & rabbis are not aware of certain facts.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2016
but you still can't solve Differential Equations


as you continue taking whacks at the math & science skills of those such as myself


I think I speak for several people with this answer: because you talk a big game about your ability to solve differential equations, yet when asked, you were unfamiliar with basic nomenclature (ODE). Why'd doesn't sit there and talk a big game about how he can solve DE, that rests squarely on you, and you've made yourself look extremely foolish in that area in the past.

Moreover, anyone with a computer can solve DE, be it analytically (if even possible) or via numerical simulation. It really isn't something to be so proud of?
- matt_s
Dark Energy & Dark Matter are, as yet, unknown even by numerical simulation. It is a concept that begs to be researched, but it eludes its seekers due to, IMHO, errors in the equations, as well as the concept of its physical? properties. Nobody knows what they're made of, at this point.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2016
@Benni
Pay no attention whatsoever to Piss1 aka my2cts. Both names are on my list of Phys.org Asshole Club members.
Relax. There is no need to be upset over the name-calling and stupidity from Piss1 and its brethren. They are the dreck of the internet...and that fact is revealed BY their idiotic statements, innuendos, falsehoods, outright lies, and mindless attacks. Stump/Otto has many allies here, and they reveal themselves as such. It is those whom you should learn to IGNORE, and instead proceed to the posts that are of good or best quality....not of stupid shit that are meant to intimidate, but fail to do so, except for the unwary who haven't learned the ropes yet.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2016
DON'T FEED THESE MEMBERS of the Phys.org Asshole Club, please.
—————
There is absolutely no point in being civil to the following:

THE IRRATIONALLY STUPID: Theghostofotto1923 - Captain Stumpy - Uncle Ira - Da Schneib - Caliban - Phys1 aka Piss1 - my2cts aka Phys1 - BAKOON (Otto's sockpuppet) -

PHYS.ORG ASSHOLE CLUB MEMBERS: Theghostofotto1923 - Captain Stumpy - Uncle Ira - Da Schneib - Caliban - Phys1 aka Piss1 - Otto's sockpuppets - Mike Massen

PHYS.ORG ASSHOLE CLUB RECRUITER: Captain Stumpy - Theghostofotto1923 & legion of sock puppets -

Most Deserving of Being Ignored: Theghostofotto1923 - Captain Stumpy - Uncle Ira - Caliban - Phys1 aka Piss1 -

Awaiting Full Membership: greenonions - leetennant - Whydening Gyre -

Awaiting Full Membership Even If Severely Disliked: gkam -

Non-Contributors of Own Actual Scientific Knowledge: Captain Stumpy - Theghostofotto1923 -

Retards: Phys1 aka Piss1 - howhot2
(Updated as needed)
Benni
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2016
@benni
I only called you an ignoramus, look that up.
This is entirely factual. You know nothing and you have no skills whatsoever.
If however you are not human but a computer program,
you are a reasonable implementation of a troll.


I've read & studied Einstein's theses of Relativity..........never found words like "ignoramus" or "troll" in them. but these are the most common & prevalent issues the Rant Brigade socializes over on what is supposed to be a discussion site for science.

Those of you in the Name Calling Rant Brigade turn the Commentary here into a kindergarten playroom of childish behavior because you are unable to come up with a cogent thought of your own. Incapable of putting up a cogent thought of your own you descend into the mindlessness of exactly what you just posted. You looking for a serious challenge in life? Go take a Calculus course, or is the mindlessness of a pile of Name Calling the most serious challenge you know how to take up?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
@o_perv
You listed me so many times, I am honoured.
Your sense of humour is still at potty level.
Start reading Donald Duck for improvement.
- Pissypants
Yo mama so fat she left the house in high heels and when she came back she had on flip flops.
Yo mama so fat she sat on an iPhone and turned it into an iPad
Yo mama so fat she went to KFC to get a bucket of chicken they asked her what size and she said the one on the roof
Yo momma so fat she sued xbox 360 for guessing her weight
Yo mama so fat that she dont need the internet she's already world wide
Yo mama so fat that she gave draclua diabeties
Yo mama so fat, when she twerk, she became a wrecking ball. Yo mama so fat she's on both sides of the family
Yo mama so fat, every time she walks she makes Harlem shake
Yo Momma so fat, I bumped into her and said "Sorry, my mistake." And she said "Did you just say steak?!"
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
@Pissypants
Yo mama so fat when she sat on a dollar bill she squeezed a booger out of George Washingtons nose
Yo mama so fat all she wanted for christmas is to see her feet.

Yo mama so fat that when she fell down the stairs, I wasn't laughing but the stairs were cracking up.
Yo mama so fat she has two watches one for each time zone she's in.
Yo mama so fat that when she took a selfie, Instagram crashed.
Yo mamas so fat when she stepped on the scale, the doctor said "Holy Crap, That's My Phone Number"
Yo mama so fat she had a baby and then ate it
Yo mama so fat her blood type is Nutella.
Yo mama so fat she went to a restaurant and got the group discount
Yo momma so fat her idea of dieting is deleting the cookies from the internet cache.
Yo mama so fat that when someone called her fat, she ate him
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
@O-pervert
due to, IMHO, errors in the equations,

Lying again.
- Pissypants
Speaking of pervert, yo daddy had sex with his mama - and you were born.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2016
Dark Energy & Dark Matter are, as yet, unknown even by numerical simulation.
This is wrong in so many ways.

Let's start with dark matter. Unless Einstein is wrong-- and we've confirmed his GRT now not only in the low-energy but the high-energy regimes-- there is no explanation for the observed dynamics of galaxies but dark matter. We don't know what dark matter is made of, nor do we even know that it's all made of the same thing, but we know it's there. It has to be. Fritz Zwicky proved it, and that was in 1933. This isn't new stuff. It's long-established and supported by extensive observation. Not only that, but numerical simulation of galaxy dynamics that gives results that agree with observations include dark matter. We're even to the point now of being able to detect dark matter not merely as "something out there," but of being able to map where it concentrates, and where there isn't any.

Your statement is demonstrably untrue.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
[contd]
Moving right along to dark energy, that also is supported both by theory and by observation. The theory is right there in the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity theory: it's the "cosmological constant," denoted by Λ in those field equations. That's the theoretical basis. And that was published in 1918.

As for observation, there are two observations that support dark energy. The first is the Casimir Effect, which shows that there is, in fact, something that pushes two plates in a vacuum away from each other. The second is the evidence for acceleration in the expansion of the universe, starting when the universe was about half as old as it is today.

These things are well-established both in observation and in theory.

Your statement that dark energy and dark matter are unknown is therefore incorrect.

That is all.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
Dark Energy & Dark Matter are, as yet, unknown even by numerical simulation.
This is wrong in so many ways.

Let's start with dark matter. Unless Einstein is wrong-- and we've confirmed his GRT now not only in the low-energy but the high-energy regimes-- there is no explanation for the observed dynamics of galaxies but dark matter. We don't know what dark matter is made of, nor do we even know that it's all made of the same thing, but we know it's there. (...) dynamics that gives results that agree with observations include dark matter. We're even to the point now of being able to detect dark matter not merely as "something out there," but of being able to map where it concentrates, and where there isn't any.

Your statement is demonstrably untrue.

[contd]
- Da Schneib
Of course it's there. No doubt about it I should have been more specific. Calculations mean nothing unless the DM is DIRECTLY observed. The chirp of GW indicates something. But zero for DM.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
Of course it's there. No doubt about it I should have been more specific. Calculations mean nothing unless the DM is DIRECTLY observed.
Umm, but it's dark! That's like ummm why it's called, you know, dark matter. We can't go out there and check it out, and because it's dark, it's ummm you know like really hard to see. And stuff.

Quite frankly we can't directly observe subatomic particles, either. Are you also arguing *they* don't exist? Really?

The chirp of GW indicates something. But zero for DM.
You're confounding DM with DE. They're not the same.
Benni
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2016
Dark Energy & Dark Matter are, as yet, unknown even by numerical simulation.


This is wrong in so many ways.

Let's start with dark matter. Unless Einstein is wrong-- and we've confirmed his GRT
How about you quote the section of GRT this is found.

no explanation for the observed dynamics of galaxies but dark matter.
That was Zwicky's speculation about Spiral Galaxies not Einstein's GRT.

but we know it's there. It has to be. Fritz Zwicky proved it, and that was in 1933.
Make up your mind, Einstein or Zwicky?

This isn't new stuff. It's long-established and supported by extensive observation
By Zwicky in his thesis on Rotation Rate of radial arms of Spiral Galaxies, 1/3 the total mass of the Universe. Zwicky never included Ellipticals in his thesis, but until you've read his thesis you'll never know that, now it's time for you to go read Zwicky's actual dissertation & discover for yourself what he actually stated.

obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
IMHO the DM and DE hypothesis is not PHYSICAL matter as we know ordinary matter/energy. The fact that we have NO knowledge whatsoever of their consistency, average temperature. non-physical characteristics, components (if any), etc. And exactly WHAT is/are their functions and how did they/it evolve into its state of existence. Will it evolve again? And into what form? Do they have anything to do with the filaments that EU claims that are a means of connection between stars and gases? Can it be used for communications? Travel to another quadrant of the known Universe?
We have to get out there. Perhaps the James Webb can give a clearer picture of it if the correct instrumentation is on board.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
For all we know, the DM is a "protectant" of some sort, and its function is as a placeholder for future star formation...similar to the foam packing in a cardboard box that keeps the contents from shifting or breaking. It's just conjecture, of course, but I would be very interested in the functionality. Is it a medium for the quick transmission of "thought"? There are millions of questions wrt it. I doubt that the answers will be forthcoming soon. It's there, that's all I know.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
How about you quote the section of GRT this is found.
Ummm, the part that figures out the force of gravity that governs the rotation of galaxies. It's in the EFE. These are the field equations of gravity. Like, you know, all of it. Duh.

That was Zwicky's speculation about Spiral Galaxies not Einstein's GRT.
It's not a speculation. It's an observed fact, Zwicky did the observations that proved that. Are you really this dumb? Do you not get that there is a difference between how much theory can show, and how much observation can show?

One of the things that obfuscators usually screw up is the difference between theory and observation. A lot of supporters fail to note that what we see in telescopes and in bubble chambers in accelerators is FACT.

[contd]
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
Umm, but it's dark! That's like ummm why it's called, you know, dark matter. We can't go out there and check it out, and because it's dark, it's ummm you know like really hard to see. And stuff.

Quite frankly we can't directly observe subatomic particles, either. Are you also arguing *they* don't exist? Really?

The chirp of GW indicates something. But zero for DM.
You're confounding DM with DE. They're not the same. - Da Schneib

Of course it's dark. But what do you do when you go into a dark room? Turn on the lights; use a flashlight, candle...but WHAT is making it dark...and basically invisible? Is it physical? Spiritual? or neither?

Subatomic particles are different and their existence is not arbitrary any longer.

I didn't say that DM and DE are the same. But we are not knowledgeable as to the properties of either one. So it is all strictly hypothetical until further developments.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
[contd]
Make up your mind, Einstein or Zwicky?
Ummm, so in your view Zwicky should have ignored Einstein? Dude, you're really weird. What "logic" do you present to justify this statement?

By Zwicky in his thesis on Rotation Rate of radial arms of Spiral Galaxies, 1/3 the total mass of the Universe. Zwicky never included Ellipticals in his thesis, but until you've read his thesis you'll never know that, now it's time for you to go read Zwicky's actual dissertation & discover for yourself what he actually stated.
Dude, his findings have been extended to ellipticals. You're just lying again. Zwicky should have ignored Einstein redux.

You ignore the fact that science builds on earlier science, and this is your bad habit. Current knowledge is based on all the papers, not on each paper in isolation. This is just a logic chopping technique, and one that's quite transparent and open to logical attack.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
IMHO the DM and DE hypothesis is not PHYSICAL matter as we know ordinary matter/energy.
That's true. However, you've failed to note that that doesn't mean "we don't know anything about them."

This is a serious logical error. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
How about you quote the section of GRT this is found.
Ummm, the part that figures out the force of gravity that governs the rotation of galaxies. It's in the EFE. These are the field equations of gravity. Like, you know, all of it. Duh.

That was Zwicky's speculation about Spiral Galaxies not Einstein's GRT.
It's not a speculation. It's an observed fact, Zwicky did the observations that proved that. Are you really this dumb? Do you not get that there is a difference between how much theory can show, and how much observation can show?

One of the things that obfuscators usually screw up is the difference between theory and observation. A lot of supporters fail to note that what we see in telescopes and in bubble chambers in accelerators is FACT.

[contd]
- ds
The force of G does all that. True. However, if you're conflating that force of gravity with DM, I doubt that DM has ANY gravity as part of its talents. It may simply meander through the Cosmos.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2016
numerical simulation of galaxy dynamics that gives results that agree with observations include dark matter


So, it's all about "observations" is that it?

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering. I know by putting an electrical conducting cable under the "observations" of a microscope that I can tell you nothing about how much current it is carrying when a voltage is applied across the circuit, I need to actually measure it by placing within the circuit a device that MEASURES current flow, an amperage measuring meter.

DM Enthusiasts have this inane habit of never distinguishing between OBSERVATION & MEASUREMENT.

Since the 1933 advent of Zwicky's Envelopes of DM surrounding Spiral Galaxies, we still await the OBSERVATION of these enveloping halos whose countervailing force of gravity to that of the Central Hub is what supposedly prevents radial arms of Spirals from crashing into the Central Hub. You can't MEASURE what you can't first OBSERVE.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
@Phys1
It might get infected.
Naww, that's the whole point of the scientific method: it can't.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2016
@O-pervert
due to, IMHO, errors in the equations,

Lying again.
- Pissypants
Speaking of pervert, yo daddy had sex with his mama - and you were born.

Now that is why I call you o_pervert.
Thanks for coming out of the closet to the unsuspecting reader.
I continue to advise all to ignore you.


- Pissypants
Speaking of pervert, yo daddy had sex with his mama - and you were born.

Pissypants follows me around to try to make me acknowledge its presence. There is something very psychologically strange/ weird in such activity...almost a plea for a sexual relationship that is very similar to Cap StumpRumps's abnormal obsession with me.
Seems more like it is Pissypants who is "coming out of the closet" himself. Isn't it strange that Pissypants uses that terminology in a science website?

Pissypants...you sound gay.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
I doubt that DM has ANY gravity as part of its talents.
Ummm, but, you know, errr, gravity's how we, ummm, you know, detected it.

And stuff.

Duh.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2016
Benni
WhydG has displayed the link to his business in another thread. I think Whyd is here for the amusement mostly

OS,
Thank you for pointing that out to benni. His condescension get's old. Which is mainly why he get's picked on...
As for why I'm here?
Would you believe... Good whiskey, hot chicks and the great music?
Oh, and... symbolism lost?
LOL - not hardly...
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
IMHO the DM and DE hypothesis is not PHYSICAL matter as we know ordinary matter/energy.
That's true. However, you've failed to note that that doesn't mean "we don't know anything about them."

This is a serious logical error. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- ds
By your own admission: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", also i.e. the absence of evidence of God the Creator's existence is NOT evidence of absence.

As to DM, I have already pointed out that DM has to exist...even if in the role of placeholder for future star formation.

But thanks for confirming that the existence of the Creator cannot be unproven or disproven due to lack of evidence.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
So, it's all about "observations" is that it?
No, it's all about observations and the models that can account for those observations. As more observations are made, less and less models can account for *all* the observations. This is how we winnow the models-- how we *evolve* them-- to find what works.

You try to freeze science to show it's incompetent. Instead, you show that you are incompetent to judge it, because you have to use logical fallacies to support your arguments, and these logical fallacies are the fruit of your initial fallacy, that there is some "the truth" beyond our observations.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2016
I doubt that DM has ANY gravity as part of its talents.
Ummm, but, you know, errr, gravity's how we, ummm, you know, detected it.

And stuff.

Duh.
- ds

Can you be absoLUTELY certain that it was gravity itself that is part and parcel of Dark Matter? If that was the case, then wouldn't you be able to SEE the gravitational effects that is caused BY the DM? Does it also have electromagnetic properties? If so, then wouldn't that lend credence to the EU model? What if DM is inert and has no force(s) of its own?
I will have to buy the Zwicky book(s) to see your side of it.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
Of course it's dark. But what do you do when you go into a dark room? Turn on the lights; use a flashlight, candle...but WHAT is making it dark...and basically invisible? Is it physical? Spiritual? or neither?
This is actually a far better question than it seems at first.

Now, try to stay with me here; you might actually learn something.

You know those movies they showed you in high school with little balls flying around, that they claimed were nuclear physics?

There's this huge problem with them: there aren't any super teeny photons that are capable of being used by the lighting for this imaginary picture. There also aren't any little balls.

The dark closet is the *ENTIRE REAL WORLD*. You have no flashlight, and there isn't a light switch. Candles don't exist. Worse yet light doesn't exist.

This is the reality of subatomic physics. It has nothing to do with the day-to-day reality you think you exist in.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2016
Benni
WhydG has displayed the link to his business in another thread. I think Whyd is here for the amusement mostly

OS,
Thank you for pointing that out to benni. His condescension get's old. Which is mainly why he get's picked on...
As for why I'm here?
Would you believe... Good whiskey, hot chicks and the great music?
Oh, and... symbolism lost?
LOL - not hardly...

You're welcome.
Time to go...my wife is waiting for me so that we can out for dinner at a nice five star restaurant with some friends and colleagues.

Cheerio
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2016
By your own admission: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", also i.e. the absence of evidence of God the Creator's existence is NOT evidence of absence.
But apparently you didn't notice that lack of evidence of absence isn't evidence of presence.

This whole logic thing kinda seems like it's news to you.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
Can you be absoLUTELY certain that it was gravity itself that is part and parcel of Dark Matter?
Ummm, yes, since Zwicky detected it because he couldn't account for the velocity of stars at the outer edges of galaxies, when said velocity is dependent only upon gravity.

Repeat yes. Just by Zwicky's original observations. And by the equations of gravity. Nothing more.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2016
Of course it's dark. But what do you do when you go into a dark room? Turn on the lights; use a flashlight, candle...but WHAT is making it dark...and basically invisible? Is it physical? Spiritual? or neither?
This is actually a far better question than it seems at first.

Now, try to stay with me here; you might actually learn something.

You know those movies they showed you in high school with little balls flying around, that they claimed were nuclear physics?

There's this huge problem with them: there aren't any super teeny photons that are capable of being used by the lighting for this imaginary picture. There also aren't any little balls.

The dark closet is the *ENTIRE REAL WORLD*. You have no flashlight,(...)Worse yet light doesn't exist.

This is the reality of subatomic physics. It has nothing to do with the day-to-day reality you think you exist in.
- ds
I wasn't referring to subatomic physics. Only DM.

Time to go...BBL.
Benni
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2016
How about you quote the section of GRT this is found


Umm, the part that figures out the force of gravity that governs the rotation of galaxies. It's in the EFE. These are the field equations of gravity.


So "umms" & "duhs" are scientific methods according to you?

OK, do a Stumpy for us here, Copy & Paste for us a quote from GR that makes the case for your assertions that Einstein's GR predicted the existence of DM.

The Einstein Field Equations (EFE) prove that DM does not exist inside our solar system, but you don't know why do you?

Einstein derived his field equations for gravity for use in proving the Photon Deflection section of GR. He used his field equations for calculating the Suns gravity based on it's Visible Mass. He calculated Photon Deflection within 0.02% of error when it was actually measured a few years later. If the Universe were actually composed of 80% DM, how did Einstein get this right when he miscalculated 80% of the Sun's mass?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
I wasn't referring to subatomic physics. Only DM.
But your argument is wrong for all of subatomic physics, AND wrong for DM. And you're the one who's insisting we find DM in subatomic physics: you want to "see it." Subatomic physics is the closest you're going to come.

Being later won't help you.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2016
So "umms" & "duhs" are scientific methods according to you?
No, they're expressions of extreme distaste, sarcasm, and derision for the absolutely ridiculous things you say.

your assertions that Einstein's GR predicted the existence of DM
Please show where I said anything that even remotely resembles this in any framework but your fallacious imitation of logic.

The Einstein Field Equations (EFE) prove that DM does not exist inside our solar system, but you don't know why do you?
Actually what they show is that there isn't much of it, not that there isn't any of it. You're lying again, Lenni.

If the Universe were actually composed of 80% DM
The universe is only 25% dark matter. You're lying again, Lenni.

Einstein... miscalculated 80% of the Sun's mass?
I have no idea what you're even talking about. You're lying again, Lenni.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2016
I accept 1s from idiots as proofs of my courage.

Thank you.
someone11235813
4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2016

The ancients had no concept of Time in the billions of years. Not so much that they were ignorant of the fact, but the maths, instruments, and the basic education of such hadn't been invented and conceptualized.


You have completely missed my point. I'm saying that having a religious/god/creator/magic attitude to life the universe and everything has been the most normal and expected behaviour of any sane person during the whole of human history apart from the past say 500 years.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2016
OK, do a Stumpy for us here, Copy & Paste for us a quote from GR that makes the case for your assertions that Einstein's GR predicted the existence of DM.

There wouldn't be one because the observational technology for it wasn't yet developed.
The Einstein Field Equations (EFE) prove that DM does not exist inside our solar system, but you don't know why do you?

The proof of it is the accuracy with which he predicted photon deflection. BTW - that's an inferred observation - that you seem okay with...
... If the Universe were actually composed of 80% DM, how did Einstein get this right when he miscalculated 80% of the Sun's mass?

He calculated correctly because DM is not present (in any volume) within the SS. What about that don't you get? You have any idea how much space is out there? And how much gravitational effect is required?
What is the point you want to make, exactly?
Benni
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2016
The universe is only 25% dark matter. You're lying again, Lenni.


......and the name calling from the Rant Brigade just starts all over again by calling people "liars", the only rebuttal you have.

OK, "Ummm" & "Duh" guy, prove it. If you believe Zwicky, then you believe 80% of the mass of the universe must be found in Spiral Galaxies because that is what his DM Thesis was about, but the problem with that is the fact that Spiral Galaxies only compose 1/3 of the mass of the universe.

Not only do you have a MASS problem but you have a MATH problem with Zwicky's zany thesis. How do you propose to reconcile Zwicky's DM theories whereby 80% of the MASS of the universe is located within 1/3 of it's mass? You imagine you know so much about EFE math, then apply some EFE math to that & see what you come up with.

It'll be interesting to see if you can read this right without misquoting anything I've stated.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2016
The universe is only 25% dark matter. You're lying again, Lenni.
OK, "Ummm" & "Duh" guy, prove it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=universe+composition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

First hit: http://chartsbin.com/view/yuc

Says "25% dark matter."

We done here?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2016
and the name calling from the Rant Brigade just starts all over again by calling people "liars", the only rebuttal you have
LMFAO
so, wait... if you call someone a liar, it must be true...

but if someone actually points out that you are intentionally lying and attempting to blatantly misquote or make a false claim about what was stated, it is "name calling from the Rant Brigade" and the "only" rebuttal????

how does that logic work?

LOL

what refute can anyone give when you are actually lying other than to point it out?

but then you end with
It'll be interesting to see if you can read this right without misquoting anything I've stated
was that irony or hyperbole, given your actions above?

there is nothing misquoted above about you, including my posts to you, which have your own words in epic math and astronomy fails

your problem is that you can't see your own D-K for the dementia fogging your head
Benni
4.1 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2016
I accept 1s from idiots as proofs of my courage.

Thank you.


The 1s from me are due to your refusal to prove assertions you are making that Einstein's GR support zany Zwicky's hypothesis for DM.

Now come on there old boy, do the Stumpy Copy & Paste Dance & quote us the lead in section of GR supporting claims you made.

I guess you don't know it, but Einstein & Zwicky knew each other, and it wasn't on a friendly basis. Einstein warned Zwicky to keep his Cosmic Fairy Dust a long way away from our solar system or Zwicky would risk running into public disclosure about the conflicts DM would have with his GR, this & all his other wacko theories as well.

As it turned out Einstein did not need to be on the forefront of exposing Zwicky for the wacko he was, others were more than willing to do it & did do it for him, thus sparing Einstein from having some of the other kinds of publicized unprofessional mudslinging encounters Zwicky was already having with others.
Benni
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2016
The universe is only 25% dark matter. You're lying again, Lenni.
OK, "Ummm" & "Duh" guy, prove it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=universe+composition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

First hit: http://chartsbin.com/view/yuc

Says "25% dark matter."

We done here?


I guess so as it appears you don't know how to find the section of Einstein's GR so as to create a lead in link to support your claim that DM has a basis for support in Einstein's GR.

Yeah, old Da duh boy.......just one more piece of funny farm science from those of you who wouldn't recognize a Differential Equation if someone suddenly plunked one in front of your face, but you will nevertheless always feel free to function within the mean spirits of your godfather Zwicky & you will keep up all the foul mouthed name calling that Zwicky was also well known for.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2016
assertions you are making that Einstein's GR support zany Zwicky's hypothesis for DM
You do realize that Zwicky's theory of dark matter is based on gravity, and that GR is the field theory of gravity, right? Well, apparently not.

There's little point in arguing with someone who makes your points up for you.

Seriously, Lenni, is that the best you can do?
Amoeboid
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2016
I'd be interested to know what they define as "belonging to one of 28 religions". Not belonging to a religion meant being shunned, and very few scientists were okay with being loners. But at the very least they debated the existence of a supernatural meddler instead of blindly accepting it. I'd like to know what percentage could be counted as agnostic, I think 90% belonging to religion is probably a lot lower if you consider that.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2016
I accept 1s from idiots as proofs of my courage.

Thank you.

Being too stupid to comprehend that you are wrong and thus reduced to screaming "liar", is NOT courage.

You're welcome.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2016
You're welcome.
You a blonde by the way?
Macrocompassion
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2016
There is no conflict between religion and science if one accepts that the Creation begun timelessly with the Big Bang, the creation of space-time and the laws of physics. Evolution can then follow without any problem in its orderly concept.
The trouble with faith is that it is 100% certain and the trouble with scientific knowledge is that it isn't!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2016
You have completely missed my point. I'm saying that having a religious/god/creator/magic attitude to life the universe and everything has been the most normal and expected behaviour of any sane person during the whole of human history apart from the past say 500 years
Does this include all the religious tales of severed heads which have survived from antiquity?
http://listverse....d-heads/

-Or the Mormon belief that jesus walked among the Ojibwa, the Apache and the chippewa? Or only the universal xian notion that jesus fathered himself with his Virgin mother? And then martyred himself in the last officially sanctioned divine human sacrifice?
There is no conflict between religion and science
-See above.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2016
BTW the severed heads of both st Peter and St Paul sit above the altar in the archbasilica of St John lateran in rome, in golden caskets, preserved for eternity and beyond, etcetc.
http://gadling.co...in-rome/

St John lateran is the popes personal superbasilica; st Peters was not big enough for him and god at the same time.

So now Rome is big enough for the both of them.

And the mythos of the special place severed heads occupy in religious annals lives on.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2016
BTW st peters chair (excuse me - the Chair of St Peter) is nailed to the wall of the holiest of holies in the basilica of St Peter in rome.

But you wouldn't recognize it as it is all covered in gold and surrounded by saints and cherubs and stuff.
http://www.christ...edra.jpg

-And for your convenience his headless body lies only a few paces away.
There is no conflict between religion and science
Well this is true st peters is a whole lot like the air and space museum with flying body parts and furnishings instead of flying machines.
marktec2
3 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2016
Ladies and gentlemen, let us please balance our use of analytical and empathic brain pathways to encourage peace within ourselves and understanding in the world. Eschew fanaticism of all kinds!
jeffensley
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2016
Ladies and gentlemen, let us please balance our use of analytical and empathic brain pathways to encourage peace within ourselves and understanding in the world. Eschew fanaticism of all kinds!


End of discussion. We are human.. we are thankfully neither entirely analytical nor entirely spiritual. Both have an important place in the world.
jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2016
All of us start out as atheists, or more correctly, itheists. If no one told us about a spirit-man in the heavens, all seven of them according to "the" Bible, we would not believe. The first thing a kid asks when told g-o-d created everything is who created g-o-d. They are told "he" has always existed, with no evidence or argument, and further questioning is severely frowned upon. As an ex-Christian, I've been on both sides of the argument.


So who taught the first deists? My personal spiritual experiences don't come from words in a book, they come from an indescribable connection to and gratitude for all existence.
Andragogue
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2016
The writer demonstrates an ignorance of atheism and appears to be completely unfamiliar with Secular Humanism. I suspect the whole article is shot through with gross generalizations and is therefore to be taken with a grain of salt.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2016
Both have an important place
@jeffe
not really, because there is no proof of the existence of a "spirit"
So who taught the first deists?
self taught
the human mind is great at finding patterns. now combine this with the paranoia of the necessity of "faith" built into the human (you didn't need to see the predator to assume it was there and run)
taking both together it was a foregone conclusion that natural events that couldn't be explained would "need" explanation from the curious ape called homo sapiens sapiens

As such, there are two types of ape seeking the answers: one who makes shit up and relies solely upon said faith (these are the ones of otto's "tribal" people who created religion and excused their own ritualistic needs to kill)

the others sought to be able to repeat and prove something first

the former ruled for millennia out of fear and their need to control;
the latter have risen since the age of reason to explain reality and give is TECH
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2016
@jeffe cont'd
My personal spiritual experiences don't come from words in a book, they come from an indescribable connection to and gratitude for all existence
just because you can't explain the reason for your biological functions doesn't mean there isn't a physical reason for them

this is like the prayer and exorcism of demons from the depressed, mentally ill or other medical problems (like epilepsy) which happened in the millennia past

you "want" to ascribe a supernatural reason for it, and so it makes it easier for you to believe
lots of deists do the same, including myself as a youth

but the better educated i became, the more i saw where science really "can" answer the questions

it then goes back to evidence: the whole reason your believe is because you're taught that belief sans evidence is the key to the whole issue (this is taught by all religions)

science breaks that spell of ignorance
belief isn't the key without evidence to support it
peasea
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2016
Empathy or not, we don't really have any really reliable way of knowing what goes on in the mind of other human beings.That, I would say accounts for most of the insecurity we experience as humans. Banding together has achieved results which no solo individual in the wilderness could hope for.

That makes coordinating and coming together rather compelling. On the other hand, we seem to designed to never quite trust any other human (or at least to trust our understanding of them).

Both science and religion I would say were designed to address the basic suspicion of/misunderstanding or fear of other individuals, with the hope that we can operate more effectively as a group – and hopefully share all the advantages or division of labor etc.

Both of them resort to empiricism to achieve its ends. Science says 'repeat the test find another result' – religion says 'go against us and whether that profits you'
peasea
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2016
W/R to the article we are supposed to be commenting on: I don't think one can concentrate on mental input (the base element of empathy) at the exact same time as modeling reality in a virtual mental space (base of science).

Just as one cannot breathe in and out at the same time – our inner experience of the two processes are quite disparate, leading to some who want to bully us by saying one is more important than the other. Bullying either for personal gain or simply for the hell of it. That is the company we keep.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2016
W/R to the article we are supposed to be commenting on: I don't think one can concentrate on mental input (the base element of empathy) at the exact same time as modeling reality in a virtual mental space (base of science).

Just as one cannot breathe in and out at the same time – our inner experience of the two processes are quite disparate, leading to some who want to bully us by saying one is more important than the other. Bullying either for personal gain or simply for the hell of it. That is the company we keep.
- peasea
That is a fair assessment and it doesn't favor either one over the other. Religion, in and of itself provides a comfort zone and, quite often, a sense of healing or being healed. For many, it's a desire for protection in a personal sense that offers a protection that is not available from any other source but from the Creator and His Holy Angels. OTOH, science also offers a protection of our material, physical selves and we accept that also.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2016
(cont'd)
@peasea
Empathy isn't a virtue that's designed to be controlling. It's just giving of oneself for the sake of the other person(s) happiness and welfare. This is one of the tenets of the faith/belief in the Creator for the reason that the Creator loves His human creation, having given certain rules and Laws to live by that bring Order instead of chaos into human lives.
Organized religions and their manmade laws don't always reflect the Commandments given by the Creator, and it's up to the individual to make the decision whether to choose God the Creator, or to choose a more secular path of worship.
There is also the worship of science that is godless for the most part, due to its very nature of rejecting that which can't be detected with the five senses and sensitive instrumentation. Scientific research isn't always for the betterment of the human condition, but for its own sake and the satisfaction of curiosity and fulfillment of expectations.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2016
science breaks that spell of ignorance[.] belief isn't the key without evidence to support it


Belief wouldn't be Belief if there was evidence to support it.

For example, the notion that all there IS, existentially, is knowable through science, or just even knowable as existing independently of the conceptual elements that are manifestly dependent upon mind,.... is a tacit Belief system on your part.

There are strict conditions for knowledge to be possible wrt observability, inference, our conceptual framework, ...and this places limits upon science such that there remain questions that are entirely legitimate though unresolvable via science. In such cases the question itself is the form of its own belief.

[mic dropped.......]

peasea
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2016
(cont'd)
@peasea
"Empathy isn't a virtue that's designed to be controlling. It's just giving of oneself for the sake of the other person(s) happiness and welfare. "

Right here we see one of the biggest problems - confused presentation which just joins thought fragments together willy nilly, presumably hoping that we will be convinced that a logical argument exists behind that. Well - we can;t really conclude whether that behavior is oriented to be controlling or whether the person is just struggling. Empathy is as defined a passive process (feeling and understanding what others feel. Meanwhile giving of oneself is an active process (which may or may not have been precipitated by empathy). Unless you take no notice of language (thanks, so considerate!) they are quite separate separate things and saying one is the other is either a meaningless preamble, to dominate by inserting a series of further mind numbing assertions - or a cry for help. How would we know which it is?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2016
End of discussion. We are human.. we are thankfully neither entirely analytical nor entirely spiritual. Both have an important place in the world
-Except that spiritual has entirely no place in the world.

Unless you can supply an example of how the world wouldn't be better off without it?

Just because it exists doesn't mean it's either good or necessary or inevitable. It's like saying that thievery and dishonesty have an important place in the world.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2016
there remain questions that are entirely legitimate though unresolvable via science
@nou
sorry, this is no different than the "god of the gaps" argument

just because you think, based upon your knowledge or the tech of today, that there will be questions "unresolvable via science" doesn't make it any more true than the religious fundies stating that their deity exists in the unknown regions of knowledge

in fact, that is, by definition, a "belief" sans evidence (a faith) that, when compared to the history of scientific advancement to date, looks like a very rediculous claim to make as it is also, by definition, the "you can't answer the unknown" argument

i would bet on science any day of the week simply based upon it's historical ability to answer the "unknown" you claim exists

unknown doesn't mean "unknowable"

.

.

[mic dropped.......]
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2016
there remain questions that are entirely legitimate though unresolvable via science

sorry, this is no different than the "god of the gaps" argument

Well not quit, as I wasn't referencing a 'lack of knowledge'. I was referencing intrinsic limits of obtaining knowledge (epistemology), to point out that science can't be effectively 'omniscient' even in principal given those limits.
If something is not knowable that is because either it does not affect us ever or because it does not exist. This amounts to the same thing.

By that logic, ontological existence would be contingent upon the existence of mind, which is absurd. Knowledge is contingent upon mind.
Your argument is just the well known theist argument, that atheism is also a belief, in disguise.

If one based their atheism on 'lack of evidence' then they tacitly assume that science is 'omniscient' meaning without limit in power,… which indeed sounds familiar.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2016
If some deity exists and insists on hiding itself from us... then it's no deity I'd ever trust.

And I'm sorry but revealing itself to a bunch of ignorant stone age sheep herders and avoiding revealing itself to technologically sophisticated space age scientists is "hiding."

There's a lie in the middle of be-LIE-ve.

I can hang with deists, but strict constructionist faithists are idiots. The Babble is a book by stone age sheep herders and is about as accurate as you'd expect stone age sheep herders to be.
peasea
1.3 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2016
I don't understand what all the fuss is about - there are things we know fairly well, things we know nothing of – and plenty of things we don't know much about. And the things we don't know about are not exclusively out on the edges with the 'big' questions. You don't really know whether you will be distracted and spill your next cup of coffee no matter how scientific your approach to life.

I think we have a duty to always 'know what we can'. And after that life is a gamble. And you cannot avoid making myriads of decisions' just because you are a scientist' and you are not satisfied with the conditions.

The more we learn (for most of us) the more we become aware of how little we know. It is excellent to be motivated to know more. However if, as with most religions, you prioritize 'that which you don't know' higher 'than that which you do', I would say you definitely need help and are the last party who should be telling others how to live.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2016
I don't tell anybody how to live. I tell them the facts and leave them to draw their own conclusions. I might bother to state my conclusions but others are free to draw their own. It's not my problem; the average IQ is 100.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2016
Well not quit, [sic]
@Nou
i see your point,but i still disagree because it still is reminiscent of the god of the gaps argument
to point out that science can't be effectively 'omniscient'
still reminiscent of the god of the gaps argument

basically this says that the unknown is now knowable by science
but that is only unknown because it is not known or studied, not because we aren't capable of knowing it

the mind/brain is a good example of this:
just because the knowledge of QM and chemistry show that we don't know exactly how a person will react to a situation even though we know how the chemistry, physics will react doesn't mean it will not be able to produce a set of probabilities or even be able to predict in the future based upon information we may not know is relevant to the decision

we are also not going to be the same creature 1 million years from now, so we can't predict the changes we will have that will allow more knowledge/info, etc
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2016
@Nou cont'd
oh, i marked it a 3 because i don't agree with what you said, but you did clear your argument a little, just not much
If one based their atheism on 'lack of evidence' then they tacitly assume that science is 'omniscient'
no. patently false
besides the obvious use of unreasonable terminology like omniscient.... lets get back to the god of the gaps argument and how it applies to you here

it is more like history in that, when something has been said to be unknowable, it has been proven time and again to be false (like Newtons claims about gravity where he gave up, but Einstein corrected, or the claims about the Higgs, etc)

so it's not about "omniscience" because of evidence, it is about statistics and probability and the fact that, just because we don't know it, doesn't mean we will never know it

historically we have a great track record proving the unknowable to be known, so we can esxtrapolate that as a probability about the future
Near or far
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2016
Your continued insistence upon an association with the 'god of the gaps' argument, is to not understand the point made.

I am not referring to questions that 'may in the future be answered but is just not now answered', nor that CAN be answered 'in principal',... but rather I'm referring to questions that are NOT amendable to the scientific method at all, not even in principal.

An atheist must take the proposition as it is given to him, if he claims to dispute it,.... i.e. a theist's proposition that a supernatural being that is omniscient with omnipotence, is the ultimate creator of the universe. Given the proposition, this means transcends laws of physics,... and therefore the scientific method.

Science itself makes the distinction between valid scientific questions and those that are not valid scientific questions, by referring to them as 'metaphysical'.

The scientific method is not itself omnipotent,... it has fundamental limiting conditions.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2016
I don't understand what all the fuss is about - there are things we know fairly well, things we know nothing of – and plenty of things we don't know much about. And the things we don't know about are not exclusively out on the edges with the 'big' questions. You don't really know whether you will be distracted and spill your next cup of coffee no matter how scientific your approach to life.
We don't know when the radioisotope will pop, either, but we know how often one will pop in a collection of a million of them. That doesn't mean a deity "makes" them pop.

If the Babble predicted transistors, I *might* be impressed.

I think we have a duty to always 'know what we can'. And after that life is a gamble. And you cannot avoid making myriads of decisions' just because you are a scientist' and you are not satisfied with the conditions.
I don't know what this means. Scientists aren't claiming to know everything, and this appears to claim they are.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2016
[contd]
The more we learn (for most of us) the more we become aware of how little we know. It is excellent to be motivated to know more. However if, as with most religions, you prioritize 'that which you don't know' higher 'than that which you do', I would say you definitely need help and are the last party who should be telling others how to live.
Combined with the previous paragraph, I think this is a stronger case against religion than against science.

I don't think there's any "balance" between science and religion that's necessary. They pursue completely different goals, and do so by completely different methods. There's nothing inherently wrong with religion, but it does seem that it tends to make grandiose claims without support, the way most people practice it. And I think it lends itself to that and that should not go unchallenged.

If you want to have a deity fine. But that's no excuse for denying what you can't understand.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2016
Continued from above.....

So, again, If one based their atheism on 'lack of evidence' then they tacitly assume that science is 'omniscient' meaning without limit in power in answering all legitimate questions that can be posed,... when in fact not all such questions are amendable to the scientific method.

The atheist may retort that, that 'something must be wrong then with the question itself, the question or belief must be defective in someway, if it can't be subject to the scientific method'. The theist or epistemologist could retort that rather it exposes the intrinsic limits or conditions of science itself,... i.e. science is not 'omniscient' given its operational conditions,... because obtaining knowledge itself imposes limiting conditions given the nature of mind.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2016
If something in principle can not be known then it has no effect whatsoever.


It has no effect on the entity seeking knowledge and so can not be known by it,... which is a very different statement. This does not mean logically it does not exist. It could instead expose a limit of the knowing subject and conditions for knowledge to be possible.

Indeed, my contention above is that the atheist [referenced above] makes a no better argument than the theist, in that both make use of proposition of omniscience; In the case of the theist it is a supernatural being, while in the case of atheist it is the ability for mind-dependent scientific knowledge to be omniscient (answering every possible legitimate question posed).

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2016
That is an excellent operational definition of non-existence.


'Operational', meaning it is an 'excellent definition' within the context and conditions necessary for ascertaining knowledge, sure. But since there ARE such conditions and mind is NOT omniscient, an 'operational definition' is not an ontological one, but rather a practical and limiting one.

As DaSchnieb correctly points out, "Scientists aren't claiming to know everything". If an atheist is refuting the above theists proposition with the 'lack of evidence' argument, he is tacitly implying his belief that science is 'omniscient'.

A better response from the atheist is this,... 'that theists proposition is unresolvable within the context of science and therefore can not be a source of knowledge given the conditions for knowledge to be possible, and therefore is a metaphysical one and so does not advance beyond the 'quality of belief'. Instead, the atheist (above) uses belief himself.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2016
a theist's proposition that a supernatural being that is omniscient with omnipotence, is the ultimate creator of the universe.


A "supernatural being that is omniscient with omnipotence" that is UNDETECTABLE, which is a requirement for believing in it, does not exist.


That is not logically consistent. You can not make that positive assertion "does not exist" merely on the basis of limiting detectability, especially given that the proposition already states that it is not detectably,... i.e. it transcends nature at will.

If in principle the[re] CAN be evidence, then one may believe in its reality until the moment that the evidence is available after which this belief is transformed into knowing, that is, science.


But you're changing the proposition. You have to take it as it is given to you.

Such belief is merely hypothesis.


Technically, a hypothesis is a proposition with expected future investigability.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2016
I'm referring to questions that are NOT amendable to the scientific method
@Nou
but there aren't any of those unless you invoke special circumstance and subjectivity

now, philosophy will state something different, but it is not the case because we're not talking about semantics or what appears to be logical, we're talking about what exists in reality- IOW- that which can be measured and empirically proven to exist that is not subjective
'metaphysical'
whcih takes us back to my above point

metaphysics is about philosophy and is subjective to the individual
https://en.wikipe...aphysics

it has fundamental limiting conditions
true in that science and it's methods applies only to reality and that which *cannot* be subjective

your argument is to assume the validity of philosophy when it is entirely subjective to the individual

so it is not really the same thing as the scientific method with it's repeatable results & evidence based tech
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2016
but there aren't any of those unless you invoke special circumstance and subjectivity
In other words, philosophy.

Which is my problem with Noum. This isn't a philosophy site. It's a science site.

Science works by the scientific method, not the religious method, and its effectiveness is manifestly demonstrated by jet aircraft, refrigerators, and computers. Advances in human health and welfare result from science, not from religion. And not from philosophy, either.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2016
Which is my problem with Noum. This isn't a philosophy site. It's a science site.
@Schneib
oh, absolutely, and i've gone rounds about this before... for many threads
Otto has as well
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2016
Which is my problem with Noum. This isn't a philosophy site. It's a science site.


I post plenty on factual science at this site as you're painfully well aware. I hold no religious views and am agnostic.

My posts here are appropriate given the nature of the above article and subsequent posts. I have not seen either of you two post any science in this thread.

Epistemology, a branch of philosophy, is entirely relevant to the validity or otherwise of knowledge and so fundamental to science, relevant to the point made wrt atheist / theist.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2016
we're not talking about semantics or what appears to be logical, we're talking about what exists in reality- IOW- that which can be measured and empirically proven to exist that is not subjective


You're not reading my posts. I have not referenced 'subjectivity of personal opinion', but rather the conditions for science.

The proposition of the theist cited above can not be measured, thus can not be disproved on account of lack of evidence.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2016
You're not reading my posts
@Nou
no, the problem is that i am reading your posts, then quoting very relevant bits, but you keep changing your argument to "The proposition of the theist cited"
it is not about the theist cited, it is about, very specifically, the comments which i quoted and replied to above
If one based their atheism on 'lack of evidence' then they tacitly assume that science is 'omniscient'
no. they simply state they have no evidence for supporting the deist claim, which is very different than the assumption of omniscient science
I'm referring to questions that are NOT amendable to the scientific method
there are none
[The scientific method] has fundamental limiting conditions
not unless you introduce metaphysical (AKA- subjective or special) circumstances

do i need to go on?

i responded specifically to what i quoted, which is important

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2016
@Nou cont'd
I have not referenced 'subjectivity of personal opinion', but rather the conditions for science
you also claimed that science would have questions that can't be answered, but there will never be a question that science can't answer unless you include metaphysical or subjective questions

now, that is an important point i thought i made clear above
it is not about science being omniscient or anything else, it is simply about knowledge and finding the answers to the unknown, which is the sole purpose of Science and it's methodology

Now, the only "unknown" that science may have will be future prediction of highly complex systems with 100% accuracy
especially if those systems are erratic and heavily influenced by singular events (like humans)

but even then, with study, you will be able to make a set of probabilities of outcomes that will be accurate (just like QM)

now do you understand?

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2016
but even then, with study, you will be able to make a set of probabilities of outcomes that will be accurate (just like QM)
In fact, not only do insurance companies do it all the time, but they make money doing it.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2016
the problem is that i am reading your posts, then quoting very relevant bits, but you keep changing your argument to "The proposition of the theist cited"
it is not about the theist cited, it is about, very specifically, the comments which i quoted and replied to above


I decided what my comments are about , not you. My point above is clearly contingent upon 1) a specific atheistic argument and 2) a specific theist proposition. These conditions were stipulated on the front end and only elaborated subsequently.

[I do not have further time to comment at the moment]

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2016
@Nou cont'd
I have not referenced 'subjectivity of personal opinion', but rather the conditions for science
you also claimed that science would have questions that can't be answered, but there will never be a question that science can't answer unless you include metaphysical [...] questions


This response is evidence that you have not been reading my posts,...... as THAT is what I'm saying above,... "metaphysical questions" are not amendable to the scientific method, and thus basing ones atheism on "lack of evidence" is not a valid refutation of the theists proposition as stated above, and is of no better quality than that of the theist.

If you're going to respond to ones post, please read them entirely, and avoid interjecting points never made, in your response. I have not referred to questions that are amendable to science but just happen not to be known now . THAT is the god of the gaps argument, not mine.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2016
MM, Newton believed in god. That is a historical fact

No ! Written paper mplying acceptance are *not* evidence


So, according to you, Newton's OWN HAND WRITTEN WORDS, some 2.5 million words, much of which was kept private, does not count as evidence?! Then I must ask the next obvious question, do you know what "evidence" means?

He was profoundly religious and believed in god, and though unorthodox, was an accomplished theologian. He kept personal notes about his own 'sins'.

Wouldn't it be less embarrassing to simply admit being wrong?

jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2016
@stumpy

You seem to be at war with something that you apparently don't even have personal experience with. There's room for mystery and spirituality in our world... in fact I think it's necessary in order for us to live happy, contended lives. A clinical world where we pretend science has all the answers offers us nothing when it comes to the hows and whys of life. Sure, technology/science can make life easier but they don't offer us meaning. Spirituality obviously helps us connect to one another. As social creatures who seek connection, it seems self-serving of you to suggest we need to rid the world of spirituality just because you have some personal vendetta against organized religion.
BSD
1 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2016
W/R to the article we are supposed to be commenting on: I don't think one can concentrate on mental input (the base element of empathy) at the exact same time as modeling reality in a virtual mental space (base of science). Blah Blah Blah


I'm so pleased your brain stem has allowed all the diarrhoea in your head to finally drain out.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
You seem to be at war with something that you apparently don't even have personal experience with
@jeffe
WTF?
A clinical world ...pretend science has all the answers offers us nothing ...technology/science can make life easier but they don't offer us meaning
1- no one said science has all the answers
2- science and it's methodology gave us the world today... not "faith" and especially not "religion"
3- tech/science don't just make life easier, it imparts knowledge which is where meaning comes from... and it allows life to either continue, exist, whatever... the alternative is "praying" your disease away or "exorcism" for epilepsy, etc
4- there is no problem/block between social interaction and science... making the ASSumption that you can't have both is a mite silly, eh?
5- the how/why of life *is* science

and i don't suggest getting rid of spirituality
...get rid of "religion" (the codified rules for controlling others and causing problems)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.