Bitcoin Forum
June 30, 2024, 06:17:49 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 [1777] 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 ... 2043 »
35521  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: July 31, 2015, 10:12:20 AM
I'm not claiming that any theory is fact,
That's great. If I was pointing at your personal claims, I shouldn't have been, and didn't really mean to be.


but the theory you're talking about (the big bang) doesn't use the scientific method, as it can't be observed.  But if you track the speed and direction of matter in space, it is moving outwards from a single point.  If you care to understand why they think that, you should watch the Cosmos series by Neil Degrasse Tyson, or a Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.  Anyways, it remains a theory and it aligns with observable evidence today, but it's not fact.
True about the Big Bang not being scientific method. Is it science? The line between what some people call science, and whatever else they might call it, can be very hazy at times. The point wasn't to focus on the Big Bang. The point was to focus on the fiction side of science.


How are you coming up with the "fact" that God exist?  What are the facts? Smiley
This is not an easy subject. First, the scientific fact that God exists as explained by three of the fundamental laws of science, doesn't have anything to do with any of the religions on earth. At least not from the scientific standpoint.

The three chunks of scientific law are:
1. Cause and effect (action and reaction);
2. Complex universe;
3. Entropy throughout the universe.
I am not going to make a big thing out of this. I am not going to go and dig up all kinds of scientific teaching that shows links to it or other reference. I will simply explain it somewhat. My wording may not be the best, but you will get the idea. Once you have the idea, if you want to prove or disprove it to yourself, start researching.

Entropy is all-pervading. Everything slows down, wears out, falls apart, oxidizes, dies, etc.  Everything that is new and fresh becomes that way at the expense of something else wearing out. We see nothing in the universe that explains for a fact, the reverse of entropy... how things could exist without entropy having turned them to dust long ago.

There is great complexity in the universe. Perhaps the mind of mankind is the greatest complexity of the universe. Perhaps it is man's brain. Whatever is greatest, these or something else, the facts of our thinking, our emotions, our consciousness, our personal identity... the facts that these exist show fantastically great complexity in the universe.

Everything that we know of operates by cause and effect, action and reaction. Newton even made it into his Third Law. Because of this, from a pure science standpoint, everything in all the complexity, all our thinking and free will, has been caused by something causing it all to happen. Essentially, we don't have any free will. The thing that we call free will is a product of countless chemical and bio-electric actions and reactions in our bodies, and from without. If there is something outside of action and reaction (cause and effect), science has not found it. The very interesting point about cause and effect is that there is no pure random. The thing that we call "random" is simply our inability to see the multitudes of causes behind something. Everything that we know operates by cause and effect.

Cause and effect over the thousands of years has maintained a tremendous amount of complexity in things in the face of entropy. This shows us the fact that the mind of mankind was far more able in the past before entropy had the time to tear down its abilities. Another thing this shows is that everything in the whole universe is "pre-programmed," by Whatever started cause and effect. Cause and effect must have had a start. Otherwise entropy would have neutralized everything by now.

A person who is a billiards/pool player is good if he can, knowingly, set a string of five balls into action, the fifth going into a predetermined pocket. He taps the first ball, which hits the second, which knocks the third, which rolls into the fourth, which bumps the fifth into the pocket. Consider how great the Great First Cause must have been to have started all the cause-and-effect actions that continue to maintain this great amount of universal complexity in the face of all-pervading entropy.

Because the mind and brain of man are as complex as they are, the mind of the Great First Cause must be complex beyond understanding. Why? Because greater does not come from lesser. Entropy keeps it from happening. The complexity of the Great First Cause makes It fit the dictionary definition of the word "God."

Not only does God exist, but also, God is so extremely great beyond us that we are essentially less than nothing when compared with God.


And if we are going to be religious, why is Christianity the religion of choice?  Does it have something to do with being raised Christian?  Have you taken as deep a look into other religions and consciously made a decision?  Is your current perspective one that has been conditioned?  I'm not trying to be offensive, but I'm asking rhetorically for you to think about it.  There is a VERY high correlation of people selecting the religion that is dominant in their childhood environment.  Meaning, if you were born in Indonesia, would Jesus still be your God?  No, it wouldn't.  You'd be conditioned to be Muslim, unless you lived in Bali, and then you'd be Hindu.
Because of our remoteness, because of our inability to see the complexity in cause and effect, we use probability. Christianity is the religion of choice because of the odds it has overcome to be the religion that it is.

In the way that Christianity came into existence, the nation of Israel, their activities, the way they made the Bible record, the prophesies that exist, have been fulfilled, and are being fulfilled, the fact that the true Hebrew Bible has changed little over the ages even though it was copied by many scribes over and over, the numbers of ancient copies and fragments, and a lot more things, show that the Christian religion as it stands today couldn't exist. Since it couldn't exist, yet it is here, shows that there is more to it than simply something mankind could do. The Christian religion is a God production.

Do your own research into it.


How is science fictional?  When you get sick, do you go to a doctor or do you pray to God?  You use all the technology that has been discovered by scientists, even the fact that you and I can communicate over electrical signals shows where science is at.  Science sends rockets into orbit dude...how is it fictional if it works?

Not everything about science is fictional. God made science - combinations of complex actions and reactions, some of which we can see, other of which we can't see. But the scientific theories are fictions as far as we know. Until such a time that we prove them to be fact, they are fiction... and they stand right alongside science fact, so that often we do not know where the division lies.

Smiley
35522  Other / Politics & Society / Re: [Vote] Who did 911? on: July 30, 2015, 10:39:50 PM
US government did it.
Watch Simon Shack's documentary
http://septemberclues.info
(Please add the OP this post)
Very interesting how the "source" for all conspiracy theories, is, well, Youtube....

...and your link shows planes crashing into towers to somehow disprove that planes crashed into towers....

But why the US Gove?  Other people swear it was dem Evol Jooeeeeswwwss!

So far in this thread, the conspiracy theorists can't make up their minds -

1.  Explosives were used at the base of the towers.
1a.  Explosives were used at the 80th floor.
1b.  No explosives.

2.  Planes crashed into towers.
2a.  No planes crashed into towers.

3.  The US Gubbermint did it!
3a.  The evil Jews did it.
3b.  Who knows.

4.  Thermite was used.
4a.  Nanothermite was used.
4b.  No thermite was used.

5.  Melted steel was all over the plane.
5a.  No melted steel.

I just want one solid, realistic conspiracy theory.  We've actually got a good one on the JFK murder, right? Can't we have a good one on 911?

Please?  Help me out on this, guys.
I just want one solid, realistic conspiracy theory.  We've actually got a good one on the JFK murder, right? Can't we have a good one on 911

Ok forget the towers would you say a passenger plane hit the pentagon

100% no plane hit the pentagon
you can see it still standing before it collapsed and if you say a passenger plane hit the pentagon WOW
then i know for sure you work for some part of the government

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL5JF3m7APc
 show me a passenger plane.. the pentagon is still standing...
plus my brothers mates uncle said is aunties friends brother told him his grandad said he was there and no plane hit the pentagon Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Wait, you got to be joking.  Let me get this strate -

Your Brother's Mate's Uncle said his Auntie's Friends Brother told him his Grandad said....

Damn.

Must be Fucking True!
yer just like your cousin told you  Cheesy the truth
i knew i get you to change your mind
pentagon got you there you know no plane hit that building don.t you Wink Grin

Plane tried to hit Pentagon. But Pentagon sit on big Pentagram, and Devil power protect her.

 Cheesy
35523  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Rapture/ Comet Predictions, JADE HELM / CERN, Revelation Prophecies on: July 30, 2015, 10:22:36 PM
Seriously? Ten pages of this crap? I wouldn't have guessed there are that many gullible people into bitcoin.
Anyway, just as a public service announcement, since there are so many of you here : Stay away from gambling sites and ponzi schemes.smh

This is way more fun than learning to program, say, Qt, so that we can make our own Bitcoin client.

 Cheesy
35524  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: July 30, 2015, 09:59:44 PM
They must have got to you young.  It's sad to see, but you have the freedom to subscribe to any ideology you wish.

My question is, if you were born 3000 years ago, what would you be referencing for religious guidance?

I read the bible (in college) because I wanted to. I was raised Catholic, and have renounced the Catholic specific teachings. But, I have already asked myself what if God didn't exist, and the answer came back that God does exist. I feel bad for those who have not felt the power that the Holy Spirit gives. I feel bad for those who are still waiting for scientists to teach them about antimatter, when all you really need to know about that is in the bible.

Believing in the bible does not negate belief in scientific studies, no matter what Beliathon likes to say. It augments it.

There are many ways to be spiritual without subscribing to a specific religion.  You can experience it yourself by training and disciplining your mind with an art or meditation, or with psychedelics to get into that state of consciousness, or reference the words of someone else that has claimed to have been there.

Catholocism seems to come with a fee.  You need to pay for it.  Like a business selling a service.  A giant multi-billion dollar business, that requires subscribership.  Countless people unnaturally abstaining from sexual encounters that end up molesting little kids.  Something doesn't add up there.  If this is one of the symptoms of a particular belief system, then it has failed.  It's no good to have a system where people see god, and appointed members whose desires are obscure and morals are lacking.  I'm not saying every Catholic is like this, but there is a pretty common theme of molestation, to the point that it's not an outlier.

I'm not religious but one religion I am fond of is Buddhism.  There is no fee to join.  There is no god to pray to or be judged by.  There is no salesman requiring subscribers.  Instead of preaching it has meditation.  You end up with a society that is pretty healthy, peaceful, kind, and tolerant of other points of view.

I think religion as a whole is interesting.  It's interesting to see how it came to be, and how it changed the world and used ignorance and fear to accomplish order.  But I don't think it's something that is to be taken seriously.  All of them are great stories, great reads, and very poetic...something to be appreciated by those who enjoy, but not to be forced on those who don't.

It's the ignorance and fear thing. As long as science or something else can keep people in ignorance of the fact that they have no true control over their lives, and that the free will that people have is only an illusion of free will, then there will be no fear. All will be comfy-cozy until disaster overtakes us all. Of course, what's the dif? We don't have any control over protecting ourselves from disaster anyway, do we?

Smiley

Are you saying science keeps people in ignorance?  The scientific method requires empirical evidence and doesn't accept opinion that is not observable.  I don't think that keeps anyone ignorant of things that have yet to be discovered.  It also welcomes testing and questioning and doesn't involve any taboo.

Most people don't have a very good understanding of science, so I don't think it has much to do with the average person's belief system.  The majority of religious folks were indoctrinated from a young age and then there's a minority that has chosen a religion later in life without being heavily conditioned into it.

I'd say the greatest threat to religion is the internet and access to information.  Just access to something outside of localized knowledge is detrimental to religious belief.  How many kids do you know that were explained all religions and given the choice of what to believe?

Religion is fine as long as there is tolerance, but with the amount of religious conflict in the world, you can see that it segregates humanity into teams, and at times that conflict results in death and war.  Imagine two strangers with different belief systems trying to kill each other, and thinking "if only the rest of society wasn't ignorant like me".

However, the scientific method is not all there is to science. There are all kinds of definitions of science all over the place that go way beyond the scientific method.

----------

First, there is theory. Theory is built right into the scientific method. Theory is not fact.

Second, there is a lot of theory that has been around for a long time, yet it can't really be proven. For example, even though Big Bang Theory has been around for decades, there might not be any way to prove it without a literal time-dimension time-viewer. Yet, it is treated as fact by people from all walks of life, both high and low.

Third, the other side is this. When you put cause and effect together with our complex universe, in the face of entropy - all scientifically proven laws and facts - you come up with the fact that God exists. You won't have any details about God to speak of. All that you have are the facts that He is super intelligent, and extremely powerful. Try it... putting those 3 things together in a scientific way to see what I mean. It may take a bit of work if you are not familiar with them:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.

The point is, the thing that is called science is way more fictional than the idea that God exists. When people believe something fictional as being the truth, especially when it has as far-reaching effects as science does, they have themselves a religion. Science is a religion, even more than believing in God.

Smiley
35525  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: July 30, 2015, 07:31:59 PM
They must have got to you young.  It's sad to see, but you have the freedom to subscribe to any ideology you wish.

My question is, if you were born 3000 years ago, what would you be referencing for religious guidance?

I read the bible (in college) because I wanted to. I was raised Catholic, and have renounced the Catholic specific teachings. But, I have already asked myself what if God didn't exist, and the answer came back that God does exist. I feel bad for those who have not felt the power that the Holy Spirit gives. I feel bad for those who are still waiting for scientists to teach them about antimatter, when all you really need to know about that is in the bible.

Believing in the bible does not negate belief in scientific studies, no matter what Beliathon likes to say. It augments it.

There are many ways to be spiritual without subscribing to a specific religion.  You can experience it yourself by training and disciplining your mind with an art or meditation, or with psychedelics to get into that state of consciousness, or reference the words of someone else that has claimed to have been there.

Catholocism seems to come with a fee.  You need to pay for it.  Like a business selling a service.  A giant multi-billion dollar business, that requires subscribership.  Countless people unnaturally abstaining from sexual encounters that end up molesting little kids.  Something doesn't add up there.  If this is one of the symptoms of a particular belief system, then it has failed.  It's no good to have a system where people see god, and appointed members whose desires are obscure and morals are lacking.  I'm not saying every Catholic is like this, but there is a pretty common theme of molestation, to the point that it's not an outlier.

I'm not religious but one religion I am fond of is Buddhism.  There is no fee to join.  There is no god to pray to or be judged by.  There is no salesman requiring subscribers.  Instead of preaching it has meditation.  You end up with a society that is pretty healthy, peaceful, kind, and tolerant of other points of view.

I think religion as a whole is interesting.  It's interesting to see how it came to be, and how it changed the world and used ignorance and fear to accomplish order.  But I don't think it's something that is to be taken seriously.  All of them are great stories, great reads, and very poetic...something to be appreciated by those who enjoy, but not to be forced on those who don't.

It's the ignorance and fear thing. As long as science or something else can keep people in ignorance of the fact that they have no true control over their lives, and that the free will that people have is only an illusion of free will, then there will be no fear. All will be comfy-cozy until disaster overtakes us all. Of course, what's the dif? We don't have any control over protecting ourselves from disaster anyway, do we?

Smiley
35526  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Turkey finally joins the ISIS fight. Should we be worried? on: July 30, 2015, 07:25:39 PM

"proper amount of regional chaos"...lol...

You give the US more credit for being less than stupid than I...

Actually, the U.S. needs all the credit they can get. The 2008 almost collapse of the financial system was because of too much credit and not enough cash. The only thing that is keeping America afloat is the belief of the American people that the credit will be there.

The U.S. needs to conquer Iraq all the way, so that the Petrodollar can keep the nation afloat. If it doesn't happen soon, or if America can't conquer some other ME country soon for the same reason, U.S. credit will get really stupid, and then you will be less stupid than the U.S.... but only if you survive the big crash.

Smiley
35527  Other / Off-topic / Re: Armageddon. What would you value more? on: July 30, 2015, 07:13:28 PM
If I have nothing no one will want to kill me to take my non existent stash of nothingness and I will survive probably.

They won't believe you. They will kill you out of anger when they can't find your nonexistent stash.

Smiley
35528  Other / Off-topic / Re: Armageddon. What would you value more? on: July 30, 2015, 07:05:31 PM
Whatever you value, get it at Bobsurplus, now, before Armageddon happens.    Cheesy
35529  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Hook-nosed people are evil on: July 30, 2015, 07:01:42 PM
Beware the.... hook nosed?

Your 10 years old aren't you?  Cheesy

Yes. And his attitude comes from trying to use hooked nose for fishing. But the bait wouldn't stay on the hook.

 Cheesy
35530  Other / Politics & Society / Re: 'The 'impossible' EmDrive could reach Pluto in 18 months' !!! on: July 30, 2015, 06:59:26 PM
TL;DR

Rotating asymmetric capacitors are '50s technology.

Tin-foil hat on, I have my doubts space travel is even possible. NASA lies about absolutely everything. 
hmmm...

all the other nations too?

Now NASA's a nation?   Smiley
35531  Other / Off-topic / Re: Have you ever been with a prostitute? on: July 30, 2015, 06:57:53 PM
Yes, kind of. I had crush on her a long time before she started charging. Lets say I was happy to pay, and paid a few more times after.

Do you mean you paid her before she was charging? Or you paid her after you married her?

Smiley
35532  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Hook-nosed people are evil on: July 30, 2015, 06:47:41 PM

The difference transcends race. Hook-nosed blacks are generally pieces of shit, while blacks with streamlined profiles and upward-turned noses are typically great (although still black).


Allthough still black, really, being black is something negative in your eyes, you're a very racist individual, I feel sorry for your narrow views...

This.  Some of the worst evil people are those that hate others because of a physical trait, opinion, race, or any other dumb ass excuse to hate a human.

I am not sure, if its the bizarre thread or present PC imbeciles, who are not getting the joke, but this topic is fucking hilarious.



Are you saying that Dick Trump should maybe be called "Trick Dump?"    Grin
35533  Other / Politics & Society / Re: 'The 'impossible' EmDrive could reach Pluto in 18 months' !!! on: July 30, 2015, 06:44:35 PM



EmDrive: Roger Shawyer paper describing space propulsion on UAVs finally passes peer review


The creator of a controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology called EmDrive has finally had a paper peer reviewed and accepted by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA).

The paper, Second Generation EmDrive Propulsion Applied To SSTO Launcher And Interstellar Probe, by British scientist Roger Shawyer was published in the journal Acta Astronautica and made available online on 10 July.

Shawyer conceptualised and developed the space propulsion technology EmDrive and first presented this in 1999. Shawyer proposes that based on the theory of special relativity, electricity converted into microwaves and fired within a closed cone-shaped cavity causes the microwave particles to exert more force on the flat surface at the large end of the cone (i.e. there is less combined particle momentum at the narrow end due to a reduction in group particle velocity), thereby generating thrust.

Shawyer spent years having his technology ridiculed by the international space science research community and being called a fraud. According to Shawyer, if the technology is ever commercially realised, EmDrive could transform the aerospace industry and potentially solve the energy crisis and climate change, while also speeding up space travel by making it much cheaper to launch satellites and spacecraft into orbit.

His critics say that according to the law of conservation of momentum, his theory cannot work as in order for a thruster to gain momentum in one direction a propellent must be expelled in the opposite direction, and the EmDrive is a closed system. However, Shawyer claims that following fundamental physics involving the theory of special relativity, the EmDrive does in fact preserve the law of conservation of momentum and energy.

Testing the EmDrive on unmanned aerial vehicles

Shawyer's paper builds on his previous research on the first generation EmDrive device he created, which he says produced 200 milliNewtons (20g) of force. A German experimental scientist recently published results showing his testing of EmDrive was also able to create thrust, but that only equated to 20 microNewtons. He further stated that the results "cannot confirm or refute the claims of the EmDrive."

The most amount of thrust that has ever been achieved comes from the tests conducted by Chinese scientists in 2012, which produced 720 milliNewtons (72g) of thrust in a system built using a completely different theoretical method from Shawyer's method.

Shawyer claims a race is on and the second-generation EmDrive is being developed by several players privately including himself, and the new version of the device would be able to achieve tonnes of thrust (1T = 1,000kg) rather than just a few grams.

His paper lays out two specific use cases for the EmDrive, which includes providing a way for the 10 tonne Boeing X37-B space plane to fly into orbit on its own, deliver a payload of two tonnes and come back to Earth on its own.

At the moment, the X37-B has to be launched from a rocket, but DARPA is working on a new robotic space plane called the XS-1 that it hopes to flight test in 2017, and Shawyer believes EmDrive could help.

However, he has now decided that it would be better to focus on putting EmDrive on to unmanned aerial vehicles, with the view to eventually use the technology in the automobile industry to create feasible flying cars.

"Our aim at the moment is not to necessarily go for these space applications, because they will take so long to come to fruition. So what we've decided as a company is to forget space, and to go for terrestrial transport business, which is huge," Shawyer told IBTimes UK.

"The logic is, if you can lift a vehicle reasonably gently with no large accelerations, then you can manufacture the air frame using much lower technology than would be used on an aircraft."


Flying cars more likely than super-fast space travel





Shawyer says his firm, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd, is currently designing a drone that has no propellers or wings, and it plans to carry out the first test flights powered by EmDrive microwave space propulsion in 2017.

Flying cars are currently being invented and prototypes do exist, but they are not exactly cars, but rather, an amalgamation of a car and an aeroplane. Two companies are trying to push this type of technology forward, Terrafugia and Aeromobil, but so far the world has not shown much interest.

"If you're trying to build a flying car, you don't start with an aeroplane, you start with a car. It makes it low cost and more affordable to manufacture an airframe that is more like an automobile body," said Shawyer.

"Hydrogen storage and fuel cells are available and affordable – all of this is in place. People are sick of travelling in two dimensions and sitting in traffic jams. You need to use the three dimensions. Space is a waste of time as it's so slow, and it's not a very big market. Mass transportation and other things are a much bigger market and major automobile manufacturers will be interested."


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-roger-shawyer-paper-describing-space-propulsion-uavs-finally-passes-peer-review-1513223



I consider this as crazy talk, because the emdrive must have electric power to operate.  It is easy to figure the amount of electric power required to power aircraft at various L/D lift to drag and P/w power to weight ratios.  Although Emdrive may work for space where do you get electric power for aircraft?

1 hp = 762 watts.

1000 hp aircraft engine = 762,000 watts.

What size generator?  Powered by what?  A gasoline motor?  If so why not just run the gasoline into an jet turbine?

Of course, there are those who seem to have a more stable, better explanation of how our universe works, They suggest that the universe is electric. Plenty of electricity. http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

Smiley
35534  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: July 30, 2015, 06:35:59 PM
I don't know about MakingMoneyHoney, but when I am born 3000 years ago, I'll let you know.    Cheesy
35535  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why not do the right thing'? Renewed gun control push targets firearm dealers on: July 30, 2015, 06:32:59 PM
Why not do the right thing as a manufacturer? Don't manufacture any guns. Rather, manufacture a single part. Then, get together with those manufacturers who manufacture the other parts (each of them manufacturing a single, different part), and find a good advertiser who will advertise where the buyer can get the parts to assemble himself. Even the assembly instructions could be sold separately.

Smiley
35536  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God on: July 30, 2015, 06:27:45 PM
Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

With regard to this current subject, what exactly are you saying?
I'm saying the idea that human mind can operate outside the human brain is an extraordinarily wild claim, and therefore requires extraordinarily solid evidence to support it.

image

You are claiming it, then, right?

After all, claiming that we don't know, as I claimed, is not the same as claiming that it is fact, like you seem to be claiming.

Smiley
35537  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: July 30, 2015, 06:21:34 PM
Completely relevant. Why? Provided that they don't have some mental deterioration, their minds will have had 10,000 years to understand the simple sciences that show that God exists. These are (again) combined cause and effect, universe complexity, with entropy penetrating everything.


To use the words of Cameron, the "good" female cyborg in the Terminator - The Sarah Connor Chronicles series, "Thank you for explaining."

 Cheesy
35538  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God on: July 30, 2015, 06:16:32 PM
Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

With regard to this current subject, what exactly are you saying?

Smiley
35539  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do Atheists hate Religion ? on: July 30, 2015, 06:00:47 PM
If somebody makes it to age 1,000, we might say we are on to something. However, as soon as someone dies, we have to admit that we haven't quite conquered death, even if it is at 10,000 years.
That's true, but you're missing the point entirely. When people are living to be age 10,000 and illness is a term only for the history books, how relevant do you think religion will be to folks like that?

Completely relevant. Why? Provided that they don't have some mental deterioration, their minds will have had 10,000 years to understand the simple sciences that show that God exists. These are (again) combined cause and effect, universe complexity, with entropy penetrating everything.

Smiley
35540  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God on: July 30, 2015, 05:56:43 PM
Does the human mind go on after death?
No. Biology teaches us that brain cells die within three to seven minutes after cardiac failure. Nature is extremely efficient at breaking down human corpses. Decomposition is well under way by the time burial or cremation occurs. However, the exact rate of decomposition depends to some extent on environmental conditions.

Decomposition in the air is twice as fast as when the body is under water and four times as fast as underground. Corpses are preserved longer when buried deeper, as long as the ground isn't waterlogged.

Science doesn't know for a fact that the human mind isn't something that operates partially outside the human brain.

Smiley
Pages: « 1 ... 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 [1777] 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 ... 2043 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!