Now I know the reason why some people with high IQs become atheist. Scientist who were really intelligent do not believe the existence of our Almighty God, Einstein is exception. They became rebellious sometimes, high egos with super high confidence that they do not believe that their someone who is behind all the things we have on Earth. And because of thinking their superiority, they do almost what they want. They abused their health compared to people who believes to the existence of God. These people values their lives as they know that our body is the temple of Christ. Thus, people who believes God values their life. They are mostly the contented person and they are mostly the happy beings.
Inquisition. Oh and by the way, einstein didn't believe in your god. He said he believed in some sort of god but not a religious personal god like the christian god or allah. |
|
|
|
god is there for people who cant handle something in live, so they are asking for help. the best thing is, to find a spiritual way to yourself and then start talking to yourself like to god. its the same effect, but you skip the god bullshit.
Most people come to believe in God because their lives are simply destroyed. But I myself witness how a person became the best after he believed. And it's almost like miracles. I myself witnessed how a person became a pedophile after he believed, what's your point? People believe in god because they can't accept the real world and need something to keep going. Wow, I’m pretty sure I’d like you if I met you in person. I’ve been saying that same statement to people for about 40 years now. I change it slightly when I say it to people, “Feebleminded fools believe in god because they can't comprehend the complexity of the real world and need a crutch to keep going. Religion is the perfect crutch to hold up a weak mind.” I don't want to call religious people stupid but they are certainly very naive. Throughout this thread you will find only extremely weak and bad reasons on why people believe in god, I haven't found a single intelligent post yet. For what I have seen in the world, Nothing comes out by chance, everything needs to be created, if the food that we eat don't just appear but is made by a cook then why do we deny that there is indeed a creator out there in the universe. Mountains don't need a creator to be created, nature and different processes creates mountains, not everything needs a creator, that's a retarded assumption. Everything comes out by chance and it doesn't at the same time, it's equally probable for you to exist than not. |
|
|
|
Looks like he is giving up... https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/11/26/78153/man-who-thinks-the-earth-is-flat-delays-launching/"It appears we will need to wait a while longer to find out whether more than two millennia of thinkers and explorers — from Aristotle and Ferdinand Magellan, to Neil deGrasse Tyson and John Glenn — have been wrong about the shape of the Earth. "Mad" Mike Hughes, limousine driver and self-proclaimed flat-Earther, announced that he had to delay his plan to launch himself 1,800 feet high in a rocket of his own making. The launch, which he has billed as a crucial first step toward ultimately photographing our disc-world from space, had been scheduled for Saturday — before the Bureau of Land Management got wind of the plan and barred him from using public land in Amboy, Calif. Also, the rocket launcher he had built out of a used motor home "broke down in the driveway" on Wednesday, according to Hughes. He said in a YouTube announcement that they'd eventually gotten the launcher fixed — but the small matter of federal permission proved a more serious stumbling block (for now)." Dude, this guy is going to die doing this stupid shit, if he is actually for real because he looks like a troll. Although it's kind of hard to differentiate trolls from flat earthers to be honest. Flat earthers always say, photos and videos are fake and even livestreams of earth are fake, why should we believe, then, what this guy is going to broadcast? |
|
|
|
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.es/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo. Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many? Astargath I was going to compliment you on the quality of your response when I saw the quotation marks. As a rule of thumb it is always best to cite the source and give credit when quoting people. In any case it appears the author is not the one you linked above but John W. Loftus a former Christian turned atheist writer who has published several books about his opposition to Christianity. Loftus Writings: http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2006/12/does-science-invalidate-religious.html?m=1In any event I take the position that Mr. Loftus is mistaken regarding the bolded comment above. I highlighted the reasons why in the Scientific Discoveries by Religion Thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1956497.msg19431179#msg19431179I do not want to clutter this thread up with things I have posted elsewhere but I would draw your attention to my first and third post in that thread where I draw from the writings of John C. Wright and Bruce Charlton who challenge Mr. Loftus position. Charlton and Wright are also both writers and former atheist turned Christians so they make for good opponents to hold up against Loftus. No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis. Insane views lack coherence. The meaning of insanity in persons and nations - the primary need for restoration of sanityhttp://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-meaning-of-insanity-in-persons-and.html?m=1To be sane is to be in touch with reality, to be in touch with reality means (minimally) having a coherent perspective.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
*
There is no basis for deciding the importance of events, neither their absolute nor relative importance - on a scale between overwhelming of everything/ nothing else matters or utterly trivial/ ignored, the same event might be regarded as either - and there would be no coherent argument about which.
Between events, between possible subjects of attention - there is no basis for allocating attention, or resources, or concern.
There can be no long term purpose, no coherent planning - because there is no relative scale of values; no value as higher than another; all are 'ends' and none are means-to-ends; life is merely one thing, then another, then another.
Each specific perspective is partial, hence false; it leaves-out most things (to make it simple) and it is biased (no specific perspective is a microcosm of reality - rather it is a tiny chunk of reality of unknown relationship to the whole - that could only be known if the whole were known: if there was an underlying coherent perspective).
*
Modern societies are differentiated into perspectives - these are the specialist social institutions - politics, law, military, religion (in the past), the mass media and so on. Each makes its own selection from reality and works by its own rules... There is no underlying master perspective - no meta-narrative.
In other words, in modernity there are many selves and no ultimate real self. Each perspective can be conceptualised as a separate self, processing the world differently.
This happens in modern people, as well as modern institutions. We have many selves. Some we have learned in order to perform certain functions - one self does our work, and within that are several separate selves with various skills, When such a self is engaged, the world is seen and understood from that self.
But whenever another self is engaged - then another and different self becomes the locus of our subjective-self - when watching The News, on Social Media, engaged in sports, with family, engaged with one or another of the many bureaucracies that constitute our world (each with somewhat different rules).
*
Our subjective self moves between these many selves - some natural, some self-training, some inculcated by socialisation, others by propaganda.
Most are taught that there is no real self - just a sequence of specific selves - to be adopted temporarily then cast aside as another is picked-up. This is the ordinary, unremarkable, universal experience of being-adapted-to modernity. And it is insane.
We are insane, because we move between distinct false selves; and the society is insane because it does the same.
Insofar as there is convergence of social systems to one socio-political system (of secular Leftism) or there is convergence of our personal systems to the one system of political correctness; these are merely establish insanity more solidly; since the ideology on which there is convergence is negative and oppositional. It is an ideology without purpose or aim - except destruction of The Good.
Convergence on evil is not convergence on sanity; it is the active embrace of insanity: a species of value inversion.
*
So we are, each of us, insane; and we live in an insane society - the the depth of our insanity is measured in terms of tour will assent to and embrace of this insanity. It is not merely that we have not (yet) found coherence and sanity - but that we believe there is no coherence to be found; and indeed we have a morality which would reject such coherence if it did exist.
In a world of actively embraced and aggressively promoted insanity; the one priority above all others must be restoration of sanity: first in ourselves, then in others.
''If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.'' Same applies to your god LOL. You are an atheist on all the other religions. https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htmNext time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius. |
|
|
|
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis. Insane views lack coherence. You are right about Astargath... "insane views lack coherence." Consider his statement where he quotes you: ''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
So, what about science. As you examine science of the past, in the short time that it has been around, look at all the BS explanations it has come up with in the past that it has had to retract and correct. There are hundreds, maybe thousands. At least the major religions have been stable for thousands of years before the little stint of a few hundred years of BS science even came into being. Again, why is it BS science? Because outside of a few solid Newtonian laws and the like, science has changed dramatically in just 200 or 300 years. Is the past any indication of the future? Yes! How do we know? We know because right now there are new science theories that are putting old science theories completely to rest... even though the believers of those old, false theories won't let them die easily. One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory. Now, if Göbekli Tepe were the only old site like this, we might consider that some genius from the hunter-gatherer population put it together. But what is happening is, we are finding more and more archaeological sites all around the world that show that mankind was way more advanced in the past than we give him credit for, and in some ways, maybe more advanced than we are. Much of archaeological science is pure BS, just like Astargath suggests religion and philosophy might be. If science ever becomes honest, they will finally admit that the foundations of religion and philosophy have way better answers than modern science could presently even dream of.  Please badecker, you need to stop talking about science, you already made a fool of yourself enough times, don't you think? Or should I link the post where you fucked up? No one cares about your opinion tbh. |
|
|
|
Before science discovered that earth is round the ancient text and other religious belief pointed that earth is flat..
Actually the science says it's flat, the globe is forced pseudoscience.  Which science? The one in your head? Do an experiment and ask as many (((real scientists))) as possible, no matter their expertise. Ask them if the earth is flat or not and write their answers.  Yes, real, not the ones you find on youtube, you know people with a degree. Go ask people with a degree in science if it's easier for you, simple experiment. You will find out that 99.9% of them ''believe'' the earth is round. I once asked a long time, close friend who is "with a degree". He's very respected and known in his circle, and has quite a few degrees. When we sat down, after many hours at looking at this and that, going back and forth, my friend walked out, in tears. In one night, he had realized that all of his "teachings" and "degrees" lacked to show him true proof... everything he thought he knew, wasn't what it seemed.... just saying, even those "with degrees" can have their eyes opened... Allegedly by you a random guy on the internet. Yes I agree, some of them might be as stupid as flat earthers but I can guarantee you that 99.99% of them don't believe the earth is flat. |
|
|
|
Before science discovered that earth is round the ancient text and other religious belief pointed that earth is flat..
Actually the science says it's flat, the globe is forced pseudoscience. Which science? The one in your head? Do an experiment and ask as many (((real scientists))) as possible, no matter their expertise. Ask them if the earth is flat or not and write their answers. Yes, real, not the ones you find on youtube, you know people with a degree. Go ask people with a degree in science if it's easier for you, simple experiment. You will find out that 99.9% of them ''believe'' the earth is round. |
|
|
|
god is there for people who cant handle something in live, so they are asking for help. the best thing is, to find a spiritual way to yourself and then start talking to yourself like to god. its the same effect, but you skip the god bullshit.
Most people come to believe in God because their lives are simply destroyed. But I myself witness how a person became the best after he believed. And it's almost like miracles. I myself witnessed how a person became a pedophile after he believed, what's your point? People believe in god because they can't accept the real world and need something to keep going. Wow, I’m pretty sure I’d like you if I met you in person. I’ve been saying that same statement to people for about 40 years now. I change it slightly when I say it to people, “Feebleminded fools believe in god because they can't comprehend the complexity of the real world and need a crutch to keep going. Religion is the perfect crutch to hold up a weak mind.” I don't want to call religious people stupid but they are certainly very naive. Throughout this thread you will find only extremely weak and bad reasons on why people believe in god, I haven't found a single intelligent post yet. |
|
|
|
Before science discovered that earth is round the ancient text and other religious belief pointed that earth is flat..
Actually the science says it's flat, the globe is forced pseudoscience. Which science? The one in your head? Do an experiment and ask as many real scientists as possible, no matter their expertise. Ask them if the earth is flat or not and write their answers. |
|
|
|
 Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say. ''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations? And thus we come full circle to exactly where we were four months ago. Ok? It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a religion or not, science still works and you haven't shown a single example of the bible being applied to something that actually works.
... One way the Bible "works" is by creating the conditions that allow science to "work". Christianity and Science: Friends or Foes?https://www.exploregod.com/christianity-and-science-friends-or-foesThere are certain philosophical presuppositions that must be assumed in order for science to be considered an effective, worthy endeavor:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.
So where did these metaphysical assumptions come from? Science, Romance and the Scientific Romance of Christendomhttp://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/The most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails. The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce. ... Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else. To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that: - The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being
- This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard)
- Matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
- The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions: - Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
- Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
- Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which: Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
- Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of “poking into things” by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.
The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom. Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.So what happens to science in a world that starts to reject the basic foundation that allowed for science in the first place. Like so many other things it starts to die. This slow death is well documented by Charlton. Not even trying: the corruption of real sciencehttp://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/Real Science noun Science that operates on the basis of a belief in the reality of truth: that truth is real.
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo. Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many? Third, when I speak about science undercutting the believability in miracles and prayer, Christians will usually claim that science isn't so great. It cannot understand everything. Why do they have to do this? It may not be able to explain everything, but it has explained so much that a 15 century church person would probably lose his faith by merely being brought into our era. So many of his beliefs would be overturned at once. Science is invalidating miracles one by one. We no longer think demon possession accounts for epilepsy, nor do we believe nature is such that God sends hurricanes on people for their sins, nor do (educated people) go to faith healers instead of doctors for healing, nor do people pray for the sun to stand still, or for axe heads to float, or for people to be raised up from the dead. We know better. Christians no longer cast lots to decide important issues, and certainly would object if our politicians did this, especially if they lost the issue. Educated Christians no longer see dreams as if God was communicating to them, since science has shown that dreams are the result of the rational parts of our brain being asleep. Christians no longer believe that curses and blessings actually change the nature of people and events, and they no longer believe they are irreversible. Science sets the limits for what Christians will pray for. This is no different than science setting the limits for where aliens purportedly come from. That’s right. As soon as science showed us that any present life on planet Mars was impossible, people stopped claiming that aliens came from there! Science has shown so many beliefs to be false that it's fair to say theologians have always been wrong. Why should it be any different in the future? Fourth, why is it that the God Christians believe in will not allow a scientific test that will show he exists, or that Jesus arose, or that prayer works, or that miracles can occur, or that there is a heaven, or that there is a hell? Why not? I can conceive of such tests. For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe. If God would do miracles today like he did in the past it would be considered strong evidence that the past miracles really could've occurred. If God would "allow" tests about prayer to succeed, that would be considered strong evidence that prayer works. Take prayer as just one example. The American Heart Journal (April 2006) reported on a scientific study of patients who had heart by-pass surgery who were separated into three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didn’t know it. Group 2 received no prayers and didn’t know it (the control group). Group 3 received prayers and did know it. Groups 1 and 3 were prayed for by different congregations throughout America. The results were very clear. There was no difference between the patients who were prayed for and those who were not prayed for. Moreover, the patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered significantly more complications than those who did not know they were being prayed for. It's very interesting that Christians must downplay science. They always have. They always will. Sad, really.'' No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, if all the assumptions are true then flying unicorns exist therefore it's logical to believe in flying unicorns, well guess what, it's not, that's not how it works. If you want to believe in your god, go ahead but don't try to tell people that your belief is logical because it's not, you only believe in that specific god because you were taught that way, you haven't studied all religions and all gods to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real. |
|
|
|
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Not just assumptions like you do.
My arguments for religion are very much grounded in empiricism. There is nothing wrong with empiricism it is a very powerful tool for finding truth. Science is great but it has its own limitations and a priori assumptions as all human systems do. What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and theology)http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1
Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.
Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.
Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.
*
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?
Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).
So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.
*
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science has (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say. ''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations? |
|
|
|
Why would I read it if I don't have the scientific knowledge to know whether is true or not
How come you are not educated? In today's world the Internet allows free access to all of human knowledge. Typically a paper can be understood by reading the references. and you don't have it either. This research paper is not comprehensible? Why not? It is written in English. Your claim has zero substance; in fact, research papers can be understood by anyone, even technical papers can be easily grasped in a general sense. Just because I am not qualified to "peer review" a paper does not make it impossible to undersrand by the general public. Why do you believe it is the real question. I would ask you again, are you a scientist or expert in these things? If not, why believe any of these papers?
Everyone learns about science in school, anyone who went to college can read and understand a research paper, even one outside their field, given enough study. Why believe any paper at all for that matter? Published papers are written by experts and there is no difficulty in understanding them even if one is not an expert oneself. Your latest "argument" is totally circular and not based on evidence.    Everyone is educated enough to ''understand'' what's written there but you and I are not educated enough to actually know if the methods used were actually correct you dumbfuck. You claim you can read scientific papers with no scientific education in that specific matter and know whether they are good or not? Then you might be a fucking genius, why don't you admit that you just believe them? ''Why believe any paper at all for that matter? Published papers are written by experts and there is no difficulty in understanding'' So are the thousands of papers saying it's not real but you chose to believe those few ones that say it is real. You still haven't given me a reason on how you know the experiments performed there meet all the requirements and were done correctly. |
|
|
|
So far, no scientist has been able to explain how natural selection could lead to such complex systems. Taking into account the results of research on the ways of interaction of elements of biochemical systems, it follows that these systems were purposefully conceived and created by a reasonable Creator.
http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=natural+selection+complex+structures |
|
|
|
'I Don't Believe In Science,' Says Flat-Earther Set To Launch Himself In Own Rocket http://www.wbur.org/npr/565926690/i-dont-believe-in-science-says-flat-earther-set-to-launch-himself-in-own-rocket"On Saturday, a limousine driver plans to launch himself on a mile-long flight over the Mojave Desert in a rocket of his own making. His name is "Mad" Mike Hughes, his steam-powered rocket is built of salvaged metals, his launch pad is repurposed from a used mobile home — and he is confident this will mark the first step toward proving the Earth is flat, after all." ... [Hope this guy isn't a reader of this thread...]"I've been a believer for maybe almost a year. I researched it for several months in between doing everything else — you know, I've still got to make a living and all that kind of stuff, and building this rocket actually eats up a lot of my time," he told the flat-Earth Web show. "But when I'm not doing that, I research things." And Hughes intends that research to continue well beyond Saturday's launch, which he says he will be streaming online. He envisions the launch as just one step toward eventually getting himself into space, at which point he plans to take a photograph "to prove once and for all this Earth is flat," he told his interviewer. "This is the king of the deceptions," Hughes said. "Once this domino falls, this is it." This thread and flat earthers serves a purpose though. This is what happens to your brain when you have close to 0 scientific knowledge and you do your ''research'' on the internet, specially youtube where literally anyone can upload a video. Their logic is: Ok, let me watch this video about the flat earth, oh it makes sense therefore has to be true. Problem is many things can make sense and not be true, many things can make sense because you don't have enough scientific knowledge to understand they are stupid and so on. Now if you could only wake up and apply such logical thinking to evolution, to see that there is about as much evolution as there is flat earth. But, no. You will go on trolling everybody with evolution, while remaining full of globe-earth knowledge, thereby showing how twisted you really are. The scientific consensus is that the earth is round, pretty much 100% of scientists already know that, same applies to evolution, the scientific consensus is that evolution is the best theory we have to explain, well, evolution of humans and animals and plants. I don't see any reason to believe what you say about evolution than the whole scientific community. You are not a scientist, you are not an expert and you are also a religious nut vs people who have studied these things for decades and did thousands and thousands of experiments. Just tell me why someone should listen to you instead of the scientific community? |
|
|
|
Evolution is a hoax. If evolution is the truth, then we can see a similarity from other apes, they should bore a human-like baby. We should think critically before accepting other peoples belief  ''should think critically before accepting other peoples belief '' Funny that someone like you would say something like that because you clearly haven't critically thought about anything in your life. You clearly don't even understand evolution so there is really no point in talking to you. You think species evolve from other species because they suddenly 1 type of species give birth to another? You think that's what evolution is? You think darwin said that a pair of monkeys suddenly gave birth to a fully functional human? I mean, you can just google it, it's not even hard but you prefer to be ignorant. You talk so silly. Every last thing in evolution theory can be applied to things other than evolution. In addition, there are several major things that show that evolution is impossible. Even if a person is not a scientist, and he goes about researching the Internet and the books about evolution... and even if he becomes all mixed up by talk between the people who believe in evolution, and those who don't... the thing that he has proven to himself is that evolution is a complete controversy that is far from being known as a reality. This makes people who think that evolution is real into religious nuts. Anybody who believes in evolution without studying it is a believer in a kind of unofficial religion. He is simply accepting some propaganda that others have pushed into books and into our way of life, without having anything to back it... especially in the light of all the things against it. The "bible" of scientific stuff for evolution has changed so dramatically over the last couple centuries, that anybody who believes it knows that he is believing in something that has no strength to it at all. Even though this is a science thread, and not a religious thread, the creation Bible has not changed at all over the last 1700 years, except that it has been translated. Evolution is a complete piece of stupidity hoax. Don't try to argue on science please. You already made a fool of yourself here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24869208#msg24869208It's clear that you don't even have the most basic reading comprehension. ''Even if a person is not a scientist,'' Stop there, you already showed what happens when a person is not a scientist and tries to act as one. ^^^^^ Doing your research on google and religious websites about evolution is not going to do you any good, specially when you can't even understand the articles you read. |
|
|
|
But a smartphone 200 years ago would have intrigued many people by its intricacy of design, even if it didn't have a use. Yes, that's the point. They would think it's magic or a god did it because they don't know better. That's why we have gods. Thanks to our ignorance. |
|
|
|
god is there for people who cant handle something in live, so they are asking for help. the best thing is, to find a spiritual way to yourself and then start talking to yourself like to god. its the same effect, but you skip the god bullshit.
Most people come to believe in God because their lives are simply destroyed. But I myself witness how a person became the best after he believed. And it's almost like miracles. I myself witnessed how a person became a pedophile after he believed, what's your point? People believe in god because they can't accept the real world and need something to keep going. |
|
|
|
Because consciousness is fundamental the possibility of awareness persisting beyond death cannot scientifically be ruled-out.
Rational atheists will rely on their assumption that life after death is imppssible. This assumption is not justified by the evidence. The research into "anomalous information" should be seriously considered. An excellent paper to start learning about this is called "The Content-Source Problem in Modern Mediumship Research": http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Publications/CunninghamJP_Fall-2012-Vol-76-(2)-295-319.pdfAs I said, plenty of evidence showed that is not real or at least not proven to be true yet. You believe some research done by some people because you want to. You are not a scientist or an expert, you simply believe what you read. Quit calling me an atheist because I'm not one. Research has been done already, it started a long time ago and AGAIN I REPEAT scientists from all over the world concluded those things are not real OR at least not proven yet. You can find plenty of ''claimed research'' of almost anything and pass it here as true. I can find research of ghosts, aliens, sirens, demons etc etc and just because some specific research hasn't been disproved by scientists doesn't mean it's true, it's just that scientists are not interested in them anymore. If these things were true and already proved beyond doubt, we wouldn't be here discussing whether they are true or not. I already addressed these arguments and I never claimed that "you are an atheist". The research by Cunningham is very interesting, but you would have to read and comprehend it to have a discussion on it; making indirect arguments of a general nature does not adequately address the facts and evidence. Why would I read it if I don't have the scientific knowledge to know whether is true or not and you don't have it either. Why do you believe it is the real question. I would ask you again, are you a scientist or expert in these things? If not, why believe any of these papers? |
|
|
|
'I Don't Believe In Science,' Says Flat-Earther Set To Launch Himself In Own Rocket http://www.wbur.org/npr/565926690/i-dont-believe-in-science-says-flat-earther-set-to-launch-himself-in-own-rocket"On Saturday, a limousine driver plans to launch himself on a mile-long flight over the Mojave Desert in a rocket of his own making. His name is "Mad" Mike Hughes, his steam-powered rocket is built of salvaged metals, his launch pad is repurposed from a used mobile home — and he is confident this will mark the first step toward proving the Earth is flat, after all." ... [Hope this guy isn't a reader of this thread...]"I've been a believer for maybe almost a year. I researched it for several months in between doing everything else — you know, I've still got to make a living and all that kind of stuff, and building this rocket actually eats up a lot of my time," he told the flat-Earth Web show. "But when I'm not doing that, I research things." And Hughes intends that research to continue well beyond Saturday's launch, which he says he will be streaming online. He envisions the launch as just one step toward eventually getting himself into space, at which point he plans to take a photograph "to prove once and for all this Earth is flat," he told his interviewer. "This is the king of the deceptions," Hughes said. "Once this domino falls, this is it." This thread and flat earthers serves a purpose though. This is what happens to your brain when you have close to 0 scientific knowledge and you do your ''research'' on the internet, specially youtube where literally anyone can upload a video. Their logic is: Ok, let me watch this video about the flat earth, oh it makes sense therefore has to be true. Problem is many things can make sense and not be true, many things can make sense because you don't have enough scientific knowledge to understand they are stupid and so on. |
|
|
|
Evolution is a hoax. If evolution is the truth, then we can see a similarity from other apes, they should bore a human-like baby. We should think critically before accepting other peoples belief ''should think critically before accepting other peoples belief '' Funny that someone like you would say something like that because you clearly haven't critically thought about anything in your life. You clearly don't even understand evolution so there is really no point in talking to you. You think species evolve from other species because they suddenly 1 type of species give birth to another? You think that's what evolution is? You think darwin said that a pair of monkeys suddenly gave birth to a fully functional human? I mean, you can just google it, it's not even hard but you prefer to be ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
