The War on Religion

[PaulConventionWV]

To my knoweledge, Hawking doesn't have a theory of everything, and I do. So its pointless for you to bash me for saying Hawking doesn't understand infinity as well as me. If you think Hawking is better than me, then show me a theory of his that explains the universe as a whole.

Your analogy about the big bang theory and 9/11 is idiotic. Find a better way to get your point across.

Begs the question: Does your theory explain the universe as a whole? Are you saying Hawking needs a theory in order to understand as much as you? That is so ridiculously illogical, I don't even know where to begin. Of course, I'm not going to begin because I'm just visiting this thread to see how bad your cognitive dissonance is kicking in. It sounds like you've started to become quite bitter since I left because jmdrake was pointing out how absurd your ideas are.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't know how you've ever gotten any reps if this is what you do in every thread. If you think my theory is stupid, you could actually critique it and state why. That's genarally what most people do in forums. Just throwing out insults without any explanation is completely pointless. I can only hope a moderator reads your bs in this thread and ban your ass.

If you think his analogy is stupid, or "idiotic", you could actually critique it and state why. Why are you exempt from explaining yourself?

 

[tttppp]

So now you're the one making up special rules. All of a sudden everything can exist EXCEPT for God.

You're not paying attention. There are an infinite amouunt of Gods, like everything else. Just none of them created the universe because you can't create something that was already created.

 

[tttppp]

Begs the question: Does your theory explain the universe as a whole? Are you saying Hawking needs a theory in order to understand as much as you? That is so ridiculously illogical, I don't even know where to begin. Of course, I'm not going to begin because I'm just visiting this thread to see how bad your cognitive dissonance is kicking in. It sounds like you've started to become quite bitter since I left because jmdrake was pointing out how absurd your ideas are.

My problem with Hawking in regards to this discussion is that he doesn't adequatly explain why we are here. In order to do that, you generally need a justification for your ideas. His ideas are just ideas. Ill bet if he entered this discusion anonomously, he might get laughed at, probably by you, since he has a lot of great ideas which I agree with, but doesn't completely explain why we are here.

I don't know what to say. If you think jmdrake is rational, you are not as intelligent as I thought you were. Jmdrake has been doing nothing but trolling. Other than his insults, he hasn't even formed a rational thought.

 

[tttppp]

If you think his analogy is stupid, or "idiotic", you could actually critique it and state why. Why are you exempt from explaining yourself?

I've critiqued just about everything he said, even though its stupid. I didn't critique that argument because it doesn't make any sense. Its just gibberish, like I already stated. I already told him to take another attempt at explaining it.

If you think its rational, then feel free to explain it to me.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Am reminded of what Carl sagan was saying a while back. He said that science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe. He said that if we are not able to ask a skeptical question or be skeptical of those in authority then we were up for grabs.

Sounds about right.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm reminded of John Robbin's blistering critique of Carl Sagan and the religion of science:

Still less does Dr. Sagan seem to realize that science is a self-correcting and ever-changing discipline precisely be cause it is never correct. If a scientist ever discovered a truth, it would not and could not change. Two plus two is four is now, has always been, and always will be true be cause it was not discovered by the scientific method. Christian theology has always taught and will always teach the doctrine of the Trinity because the Trinity was not discovered by the scientific method, but revealed by God, who is truth himself.

All scientific laws are false. All the laws of physics and astronomy are false. Why just a month ago the astronomers admitted that-oops!-they had made a mistake in calculating the distances between stars, a mistake of only 25 percent. Who knows, perhaps next month they will acknowledge another mistake. Or perhaps it will be the chemists, or the physicists, or the biologists who make the announcement next month. All the physics and biology textbooks written in 1910 are now regarded as completely wrong. Fifty years from now scientists will consider our present texts completely wrong.

Scientists never discover the truth because the scientific method, which Dr. Sagan esteems so highly, is a tissue of logical fallacies. Science does not and cannot give us truth. Scientists, to use the phraseology of the King James Bible, are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Science is a tentative technological enterprise. It is incompetent as a source of knowledge. Dr. Sagan, however, is far from tentative in his oracular pronouncements about man and the universe.

 

[Sola_Fide]

By the way, I haven't wanted to contribute much to this thread because there are so many views being represented in this thread, and I'm afraid that some people reading it will think that all of the "religious" views here are Christian. They're not.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm reminded of John Robbin's blistering critique of Carl Sagan and the religion of science:

What Robbins says is essentially true, and what modern physicists certainly agree with. However, his delivery is rather inarticulate. This has been better explained by other philosophers of science.

 

[specsaregood]

I'm afraid that some people reading it will think that all of the "religious" views here are Christian. They're not.

Why would that make you afraid?

 

[tttppp]

I'm reminded of John Robbin's blistering critique of Carl Sagan and the religion of science:

That's funny, and probably insulting to most scientists, but I agree with most of it. The vast majority of science is complete bs, and if you want proof, wait twenty years when they change half the "rules." That said, the incompetence of science doesn't justify religion.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Why would that make you afraid?

Well, I'm not "shaking in my boots" afraid or anything like that. But there are a whole host of views out there which claim to represent the Biblical faith, and I just am concerned for the people who read these things and think they are biblical. I'm also concerned about the people who preach falsehood too, because I try to love people.

 

[Natural Citizen]

By the way, I haven't wanted to contribute much to this thread because there are so many views being represented in this thread, and I'm afraid that some people reading it will think that all of the "religious" views here are Christian. They're not.

True. But you know it's going to be like that. In fact it has to be in order to be practical. No need to worry about it to the extent of not contributing to the discussion though. You need discussion like that. Kept civil...like the Robbin's and Sagan's of the world did it ensures for lively and productive debate on the topic. How could you not find it practical to contribute to that discussion? Doesn't have to be a thread like the AJ one.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't know how you've ever gotten any reps if this is what you do in every thread. If you think my theory is stupid, you could actually critique it and state why. That's genarally what most people do in forums. Just throwing out insults without any explanation is completely pointless. I can only hope a moderator reads your bs in this thread and ban your ass.

Ummmmm....you started with the insults buddy. And the way to lay out a theory isn't to simply claim you know more than everybody else. You have a theory, provide evidence for it. All you've said so far is that you know more than Stephen Hawking, that science, which tends towards atheism, is really controlled by religion, and that zero equals infinity. Those last two arguments from you are provably false. The first argument the burden is on you to prove it. And for the record I didn't say your theory was stupid. That you think that just shows you have a reading comprehension problem. I said that Maybe Stephen Hawking considered your theory and realized it was stupid. Understand the difference? No, you probably don't.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't know what to say. If you think jmdrake is rational, you are not as intelligent as I thought you were. Jmdrake has been doing nothing but trolling. Other than his insults, he hasn't even formed a rational thought.

LOL. You only think people are rational when they agree with you. That itself makes you not rational.

 

[tttppp]

Ummmmm....you started with the insults buddy. And the way to lay out a theory isn't to simply claim you know more than everybody else. You have a theory, provide evidence for it. All you've said so far is that you know more than Stephen Hawking, that science, which tends towards atheism, is really controlled by religion, and that zero equals infinity. Those last two arguments from you are provably false. The first argument the burden is on you to prove it. And for the record I didn't say your theory was stupid. That you think that just shows you have a reading comprehension problem. I said that Maybe Stephen Hawking considered your theory and realized it was stupid. Understand the difference? No, you probably don't.

I explained my theory a couple pages back. If you want to discuss it, start by reading that. I never specifically said Hawkings theories were used by religion. I said that the science that support religion were mainstream and the atheist science is considered science fiction. By the way, just yesterday I started watching a science program on tv. Based on what they were saying it appeared as though they were explaining atheist ideas like mine, but then what do they do? They used it to justify God. This is an example of what I was saying. Religion is going to pick and chose atheist theories, then twist them and make them their own.

I didn't start with the insults. Matt started insulting me. I insulted him back. Then you insulted me.

 

[tttppp]

LOL. You only think people are rational when they agree with you. That itself makes you not rational.

That's not the point at all. I don't even know what you are arguing for. You have just made up a stupid pissing contest and have avoided any real discussion on the topic. You haven't made one intelligent point yet he supports you because he disagrees with me.

 

[jmdrake]

That's not the point at all. I don't even know what you are arguing for. You have just made up a stupid pissing contest and have avoided any real discussion on the topic. You haven't made one intelligent point yet he supports you because he disagrees with me.

Right. You know everything. You can't even explain the analogy I gave you. But you know everything. Whatever dude. Let me know when you buy a clue.

 

[jmdrake]

I explained my theory a couple pages back. If you want to discuss it, start by reading that. I never specifically said Hawkings theories were used by religion. I said that the science that support religion were mainstream and the atheist science is considered science fiction. By the way, just yesterday I started watching a science program on tv. Based on what they were saying it appeared as though they were explaining atheist ideas like mine, but then what do they do? They used it to justify God. This is an example of what I was saying. Religion is going to pick and chose atheist theories, then twist them and make them their own.

Oh that's not what you said. You said that the "establishment" wouldn't let ideas in science come forward that didn't agree with religion. Don't try to backpedal from that ridiculous position now. Of course theists are going to use theories accepted by people that disagree with them to make their point. Ron Paul did that with Rudy Giuliani when he lectured him on 9/11. Yes, I'm going back to that "gibberish" which you can't seem to understand. People often in debates will argue from a position that they know the other side accepts. That doesn't mean they had anything to do with the creation of that position.

I didn't start with the insults. Matt started insulting me. I insulted him back. Then you insulted me.

Wrong. I neg repped you. I didn't insult you. Not then. Between the two of us you started with the insults. Regardless since having the last word in this soooooo important to your ego, you can have it. "piss" away.

 

[tttppp]

Right. You know everything. You can't even explain the analogy I gave you. But you know everything. Whatever dude. Let me know when you buy a clue.

There's another example of your bullshit. I encouraged you again to have an intelligent discusion, and you chose to make a pointless insult.