I suggest - maybe even contend - that there are absolutely NO laws of nature. There are no laws of physics. There are no laws of science. There may not even be any moral or ethical laws. There may be no laws at all! So, what is happening that makes things look like there are laws? Here's what it is. God is controlling everything directly, consciously, and perfectly, all at the same time, in such ways that make it look like there are laws. What do you think?  |
|
|
|
hi .... i'm starting this thread in reply to all those who have started threads to ask about "the goats" .. Is being a goat is issue here ... every one use to ask about goats ... if guy'z want some goats they can use the cheap websites where the goats are available.. if the so call goats want some bitcoin for money ..they can begged it some other place .... i don't think this forum is a social media site that is for entertainment nor for beggars ... this is ridiculous ...  dont create specie difference .As there is no specie difference in world now.. every one have to work hard to get his/her aims... no matter of which specie they are... u have to count the specie difference in some part of life .. in other field there is no spicie difference .. :p Suddenly you speak broken English. Is that really you? Or have you traded off your handle to someone else? |
|
|
|
Nobody except the Islamites is trying to force anyone else into some religion. In fact, God, while He would like everyone to come to His true religion, doesn't want to force anyone into any religion. I wonder if programmers have enough knowledge of right and wrong to give A.I. a chance at using justice. |
|
|
|
Youtube "Hitler speeches" for a look at the artistic motions that Hitler made while speaking. I believe that it was those motions, in part, that actually hypnotized folks into accepting what Hitler said. In Hitler's case, probably the correct translation of "Kung-Fu" into English is more like "Fung-Ku." |
|
|
|
I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."
Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him? What is "a culture?" It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man. You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view. My point remains. If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today. Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did. It's total bullshit. Country A. Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted. Country B. Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed. Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent. You are being ignorant of the probability of being charged and actually sentenced to the crime. While the punishment is harsh as a deterrent, you need to have 4 religous, sane and righteous men with good conduct to testify that they explicitly saw with their own eyes two people of the same sex having intercourse. Now where are you going to find that? You're going to have 4 of these good men peeking into people's bedrooms or what? It's almost impossible to convict someone, unless they confess themselves. They cannot be forced into confessing anything, and they will have to testify against themselves four times - each time, the judge will tell them to SAY NO because if they say they didn't do it and it cannot be proven, they cannot be punished. If they are drunk or insane then they cannot confess against themselves. Alan Turing simply would not have been convicted if he was under Islamic Rule, unlike British rule where he was forced to confess. Moreover, there is no exact punishment for homosexuality in Islam. The are currently mroe than 50 Muslim majority countries with varying degrees of sharia law. Of those, the only countries which have a prescribed death penalty for homosexuality are: Mauritania Somaliland (part of Somalia) Saudi Arabia Yemen Iran The United Arab Emirates also has, legally, a death penalty for acts of homosexuality. However, most cases are dealt with via fines, prison sentences, or expulsion from the country. I have not been able to find any cases of a death sentence having been dispensed by the courts in the United Arab Emirates.   Then the UAE and all the countries listed would not have been the birth place of the computer... Their religion helps the brains to flee to the USA, France, UK... By the way are you a muslim and do you know the ins and outs of sharia law? I am still waiting for you to ask, openly, how the muslims in this thread feel about taking orders from an openly gay man, even if this gay man was about to save their nation and ultimately help win a gigantic war... Ask away... Everyone is friendly here Now you're trying to tell us that there aren't any true Muslims here ^^. |
|
|
|
All you need to do is Google "atheism is religion" to find all kinds of explanations that show that atheism is a religion. Atheism is Not a ReligionThis is a refrain I’m hearing a lot from religious apologists – atheism is a religion. Also its equally fallacious siblings, science is a religion and evolution is a religion. It’s a sign of their desperation that the best argument they have is not that atheism is wrong, or that god does exist (supported by evidence of course), but that atheism is a religion too. A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it. Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign they have run out of arguments. Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed. Atheism (and here I mean the so-called “weak atheism” that does not claim proof that god does not exist), is just the lack of god-belief – nothing more and nothing less. And as someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby. That really ought to end the discussion right there. Clearly, a mere lack of belief in something cannot be a religion. In addition, atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies. Even theists making this argument must know all that. So they must have something else in mind when they trot this one out, but what is it? What are they really thinking? Well, if you look at various definitions of religion, the only things that could possibly apply to atheism would be something like this: 6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly or this: 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Obviously I don’t know if that’s what they mean – I don’t read minds. But I can’t see what else it could be. They must be referring to certain activities of atheists – writing books and blogs, financing bus ads, joining atheist groups, etc. They think atheists are “religious in their atheism” as one person put it to me – the word “religious” being used here colloquially to mean something felt very strongly, or followed enthusiastically. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It’s a definition of religion that is so broad that it’s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But it is a hobby, not a religion. What Is Religion?I’m sure that argument won’t convince all theists to abandon this rhetorical trope they love so much. To really address the argument, we have to define religion, and then see if atheism fits the definition. While I don’t think I can define religion completely, I think I can state the minimum that religion has to have to still be a religion. And it seems to me that there is one thing at least that is common to all religions. It’s this. In my view, religion at a minimum, has to have the following characteristic: Religion must include something you have to accept on faith – that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief.Most religions will include other things too, but they must require faith. Of course, not all things that require faith are religions, but all religions must require faith. The minimum definition covers all the religions I’m familiar with. For example, it includes any religion that involves belief in god or gods – something you have to believe in without evidence. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism… all require you to believe in god or gods as a minimum, without evidence. The minimum definition would also include religions that don’t require belief in god, but require faith in other things. For example, I believe it would include Buddhism, which (for example) includes the belief that living beings go through a succession of lifetimes and rebirth. It would also include Scientology – no evidence for Xenu, that I’m aware of. Maybe you can think of some actual religions that would be excluded, but I haven’t been able to so far. So religion requires belief without evidence. And by that definition atheism cannot possibly be a religion because atheists do not have to believe in anything to be an atheist – either with or without evidence. QED. Now, some religious people may say, “but that’s not my definition of religion”. To which I say, OK, then give me your definition. Give me your definition of religion, that doesn’t require belief without evidence, that includes your religion, the others I named, and atheism. And it needs to be better than the two dictionary definitions I cited above. Give me that definition. Because here’s the thing. The problems I have with religions are: They are not based on fact or on any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make. In many cases, the claims they make are plainly absurd and are actually contradicted by the evidence. Religious proponents demand respect, and adherence to their delusions by others. This despite (1) above. Those are the aspects of religion that I object to. Clearly atheism doesn’t fit 1 (or 2) above, so it is nothing like any of the religions I object to. If your religion does not require belief without faith, then I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. Assuming, of course, all the tenets of your religion are actually backed up by evidence extraordinary enough for the extraordinary claims your religion makes. But they never do. In my view, theists will have their work cut out to deny this minimum requirement for religion. Come on – they even refer to their religion as “my faith”. Evidence and Extraordinary EvidenceSome religious people will claim that their religious beliefs are backed by evidence. This is where it gets tricky, because many religious people genuinely believe their religion is rational and backed by evidence. For example, one Christian I debated cited that the evidence Christianity was real, was (and I quote), “the resurrection of Christ”. Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity. But, unfortunately, there is no good evidence for the resurrection. Certainly, nothing close to the extraordinary evidence we would need to accept this extraordinary claim. Extraordinary ClaimsThis needs explaining in more detail. Why do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Well, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. So why is Jesus’ resurrection an extraordinary claim, and why is the Bible not extraordinary evidence for it? Well, the resurrection goes against all the evidence we have that people do not come back to life, spontaneously, after two days of being dead. Modern medicine can bring people back from what would have been considered in earlier years to be “dead”, but not after 2 days of being dead with no modern life support to keep the vital organs working. In fact, it is probably reasonably safe to say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people cannot come back to life after being dead for two days without modern life support. So, extraordinary claim it is. On the other hand, the evidence we are offered in support of this extraordinary claim consists only of accounts written decades after the event, by people who were not there when the events described were purported to have occurred. We are offered nothing but hearsay anecdotes from superstitious people with a clear reason for wanting others to think the story true. This is hardly acceptable evidence to counteract the fact that this never happens. Christians might ask, what evidence would an atheist accept for such an extraordinary claim? And in reality, it is hard to imagine that there could possibly be any evidence good enough for us to accept the resurrection as true. Christians may claim that this is unfair, or that we are closed minded, but the fact that you are unlikely to find extraordinary evidence for this event 2,000 years after the fact, is hardly the non-believer’s fault. The real question, considering the weakness of the evidence, and the wildly extraordinary nature of the claim, is why would anyone believe any of it in the first place? The truth is, they accept it on faith. In fact, the acceptance of this story on faith alone is usually considered to be essential to the true believer. And although that was just Christianity, the same lack of evidence, and belief based on faith alone, applies to the claims of all the other religions that I’m familiar with. Religions require belief in extraordinary claims without anything close to the extraordinary evidence that is required. Atheism requires no belief in anything. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. But the believer has one final shot – one last desperate rhetorical item to fling at the atheist. Here we go. More Faith To Be An Atheist?The final argument many religious apologists throw into the mix is it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in god. That certainly took me by surprise the first time I heard it. I think what they’re trying to say is this. Atheists think matter just appeared out of nowhere, that something came out of nothing. But where did the matter come from? To think that matter appeared out of nowhere requires more faith than to think a creator made everything. Why is there something rather than nothing? To think that matter just appeared by itself, requires faith. Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (god). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it. And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The god placeholder prevents investigation into any real tentative explanations. The theist who says god created everything, is the one with the faith – faith that “god” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith. That may be a hard thing to do for people who want all the answers, but it certainly isn’t religion. One last thing. Some theists have responded to the “if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby” argument by pointing out that non stamp collectors (aphilatelists?) don’t write books or blogs about not collecting stamps, don’t post anti stamp collecting ads on buses, don't ridicule stamp collectors, etc. This is meant to demonstrate that the “stamp collecting” analogy is weak. It actually demonstrates that the analogy is very good, since it highlights one of the main problems atheists have with many religious people. Here’s the thing they are missing, and the real problem most atheists have with religion. If stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby. Or a religion. Thank you for pushing us into more of the dogma of atheism. I'll grant you this. Aspects of the atheism religion make it appear to be a religion of non-religion, especially as more and more knowledgeable and capable atheists delve into the depths of what atheism really is, and then express such. Are the science labs of the atheist to be considered their churches? Or should atheists formally set up literal church buildings where atheists can congregate to receive more instruction in their religion?... places where they learn how to express the lie more clearly, that atheism is not a religion? |
|
|
|
Hey, folks, do you think he's really serious?  Definitely not. Now you are trying to use the religion of The Force to prove that science is not religion or something. The two divisions of what is known as science among lay people are, science fact, and science fiction. The problem is that lay people don't know where the division lies. And a lot of scientists fall in the category of lay people regarding areas of science that do not fall within their pet science branch. Since real science fiction falls outside of the two areas of science expressed above, science is a religion because of all the lay people that believe it to be real when in reality it contains lots of theory that has not been proven. People believe much of science, science which is not fact. Thus, science is religion. Thank you for drawing us to the Yoda religion to help me show what I mean. |
|
|
|
I am a Muslim, but to all the Atheists out there, I would like to send my special congratulations to you, because most of the people who believe in a God are doing blind belief - a man is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; another is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him. And that is truly commendable.
Finally, a voice of reason. This is exactly what I said once and it was pretty much ignored by the nonsense of some members. One needs to think deeply for a moment to understand this, I've actually read it somewhere and memorized parts of it.
What if you were born in a different region of the world and you were taught different beliefs than the one that you have now? Would you still hold the same beliefs as you do today? It's highly improbable that you would.
This pretty much tells us that beliefs are largely based on the region and upbringing. Atheists have managed to unlearn that which they do not agree with. It's definitely better on this path.
That's the most reasonable theist I've seen on these boards yet.
All you need to do is Google "atheism is religion" to find all kinds of explanations that show that atheism is a religion. The more adamant atheists become denying that atheism is a religion... the more proofs they offer to make their point... the further they push themselves into atheism dogma. When you have dogma without real proof, a position where you must rely on faith (though not always blind faith), you have religion. |
|
|
|
You are proving that your science is religion, because you believe it, after it has been shown to be erroneous. Perhaps I'm only proving the point that God didn't provide me with the grace to further tolerate your ignorance. Hey, folks, do you think he's really serious? |
|
|
|
Don't worry. The Bitcoin price will in all likelihood come way down. But then, after everyone sees that you can't break Bitcoin, the price will soar back up higher than ever... maybe even in the $1,000 range. |
|
|
|
Is this a fee fair where we figure out a fair fee? |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone can read the bible and call it boring. Not the first time, no. The problem with Christians is that one read is never enough, and they can never stop yapping about the (2,000 year old) "good news" from their "good book". And it's a bit more than just "one book"...there are 66 books in the bible. 66 "books", each being the length of short stories written for 8th graders... I think I've just discovered the root of the problem, Christians don't know what books are! So funny.  My only point was that there are multiple stories in the bible, multiple authors. It's not like just one book, or one "story". Re-reading the bible is always a good thing. You can always see things in a new light depending on where you are in your life. There are plenty of stories, or songs, or proverbs, etc. There should be at least one thing that is interesting to everyone. Of course that's supposing they believe. Any religious text may not be interesting to others if they don't believe in it. Though I think there are plenty of stories in the bible that are interesting even if you don't believe and just take them as parables. Of course, there is a danger if you are a staunch atheist, or a believer of some other religion... a danger if you read the Bible. It is through the words of the Bible that God works on the spirits of people. You just might wind up being converted if you read.  |
|
|
|
The thing is they know that it's utterly stupid and pointless, but they want a law passed so they can target individuals that they happen to dislike, I see these kind of laws easily being used by misandrists for example who will inevitably cry about a couple of assholes spamming their accounts and then an entire group they don't like going to jail for it.
Exactly. This is why these laws should not be tolerated anywhere in the world. And they don't have to be tolerated in New Zealand. Why not? Because New Zealand law is based on English common law. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_%28en%29.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Legal_System_Detailed_Map.pdfAmerican common law is different than English common law. American common law is a little easier. Here is how it works. The 7th Amendment essentially allows any adult individual to require a common law jury trial for anything. The 9th Amendment essentially states that no rights listed by the Constitution (or that flow out of the Constitution) diminish any rights that people had before the Constitution was put together. When was the Constitution put together? It was before there was any legalese (legal language). It was put together using the common language of the people, which is the same thing that the common law uses. None of the definitions of any law or law book that came about following the institution of the Constitution was available at the time that the Constitution was ratified. Thus, all the common law had to do with the common language of the people. Since it is the common language, not the legalese language of the legal system, the common law of the people prevails. Common law is on top, because the Constitution and the Bill of rights don't have any laws for the people. They have prohibitions for the government. And the rights of the people can't be diminished. And if anyone harms or damages another person, the only law that prevails is the common law of the jury. Thus the jury can judge both the legality of the legalese law and the guilt or innocence of a person or corporation accused. This is it, period! This is foundational law in America, and the courts all know it. Now, you as a person have to KNOW it so that you can demand justice in the only way that applies - if you harm or damage someone, or if he does so to you. New Zealand common law - and that of the U.K., and Canada, and Australia, and India, and a few other places - has an extra step in it that can make it a little more difficult, but also can make it a little harder for the courts to play with people at times. All in all, common law rules, and this means that a person can require his accuser to get on the stand and verify harm or property damage, and prove that it was the person accused who did it. Legal laws don't apply much except that the person accused lets them. |
|
|
|
Okay, here we go. Finally there The problem here is two-fold: First, it's a false-analogy to liken an omnipotent god to some imaginary dragon, even if you ascribe the imaginary dragon to be omnipotent. This is where logic weighs in on things and can catch subtle distinctions which make a world of difference. Instead of an imaginary dragon, let's use the well-know examples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russel's Teapot. Again, for simplicity, let's just focus on the FSM. Specifically, the problem is that the FSM, even if omnipotent, is a false analogy. This is because the identifying characteristics (i.e. what constitutes its identity) of an omnipotent god is its omnipotence, whereas for the FSM it is both omnipotence and the topological characteristics of being a monster made of spaghetti who flies, i.e. its physical constraints. So, an omnipotent god, or ID for "intelligent designer," is defined in terms of a total lack of constraint, whereas the FSM is defined in terms of both constraint and a total lack of constraint. This is critically important because it means one cannot be the other. If an ID omnipotently assumes a level of topological constraint, it does not lose any aspect of its identity because it remains omnipotent and thus is still equal to itself. However, if an FSM omnipotently changes its topological constraints, e.g. it becomes a teapot or a dragon, then its core identity is changed and is no longer equal to itself. An FSM who becomes a teapot is no longer an FSM no matter how omnipotent it is. Second, and stemming from this first point, we must then concede that if an ID exists, it falls totally outside of observation and empiricism, and is therefore a priori untouchable by empirical science. Therefore, Occam's Razor, which only applies to empirical phenomena, is irrelevant. What then matters is whether an ID is implied by logical necessity, and the method of exploration required to determine this is in no way based upon observation of empirical events. There needn't be any assumption of a "God-of-the-gaps" if you can determine what is logically necessary at a fundamental level, and at a 100% level of tautological confidence. My only questions about this are: 1. If God is omnipotent, why couldn't He make Himself to be within the universe and outside of it, entirely, and at the same time, while not allowing the universe to have anything to do with anything outside of it, and vice versa, except that He allowed it to be so in certain instances? 2. Is there any way an Objective God could let some people believe in Him while completely allowing those people who didn't believe in Him to not even recognize that He exists, and also letting a method exist to reach those people who didn't believe in Him so that now and again some of them would become believers? 1) Assuming God must therefore be outside the Universe could in this case be viewed as a semantic limitation of an empirical worldview. I much prefer to use mathematical sets, specifically Real and Unreal. If God is real, then He must necessarily be within the set of reality, and there could be nothing real enough outside of Reality so as to be able to determine it or create it (hence reality must create and/or determine itself). I'd also point out that your own thoughts or feelings cannot be empirically observed. Would you conclude they are unreal or outside of the Universe? 2) Yes, and I actually attempted to linguistically model this within this thread. The most general modeling, which requires a lot of explanation, is that God : reality :: man : perceptions. You could say God is trying to know Himself and self-actualize via a superpositional, singular act of creation; that reality is essentially a theory of itself; that we are stratified, isomorphic images of God who attempt to know ourselves and self-actualize via our perceptions of objective reality and the theories we derive therefrom. Objectivity is a relation. At the "god-level," He knows Himself objectively relative to his creation. At the "stratified-level," we know ourselves relative to the theories we form about objective reality as it is perceived. There must always be a subjective anchor by which objective reality can be known, and it is known in terms of the subjective anchor itself. Edit: Phrased another way, consider God in terms of both objectivity and relativity, where "objective" God is monistic, and "relative" God is stratified, i.e. "objective god" is distributing its monistic structure or essence into its stratified constituents. This stratification allows for diversity in essence. Accordingly, one person who claims Jesus is the only way may be completely correct, and as correct as someone else who says Allah is the only way -- what the two share is a recognition of the monistic essence in spite of its diversity. However, one who rejects the essence altogether may be in trouble, for he rejects the means by which he can self-actualize and know his true nature as a part of that essence. Talk like this might be fun, but it is entirely meaningless. Why? Because even within all the math and logic that mankind has come up with, mankind is so extremely weak in every way imaginable, that we can't know whether or not there is some aspect of even logic that is in God's inside-the-universe realm, but not in man's as yet. Mankind is starting to do some great things. And these great things lie withing the realms of both the physical and mental. But man is just barely starting to learn them, like how to regrow limbs... while there are animals by the thousands or millions that do it on a regular basis. Mankind is just barely able to keep people alive for a little while longer. Why not for a mere 200 years? There is no way that anyone could possibly be certain that God doesn't maintain secrets of logic, reason, wisdom, and power right inside the universe... things that would completely negate most of the logic of mankind if they were known. Perhaps when we have discovered almost all the laws of the space-time continuum, perhaps when we have time travel, radio-telepathy, people living for a thousand years or indefinitely, and a whole lot more, perhaps then nothing about God's inside-the-universe logic will be hidden from mankind. Until such a time, it is in our best interests to look for the ways that God talks to us about the things that He knows, rather than listening to ourselves talk about the things we assume. |
|
|
|
However, that isn't the only thing spoken/written about the electric cosmos idea. There are some very compelling points to it. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleadingYou have now been placed on ignore, because I have come to feel that you are beyond my help. I'm truly sorry. Please realize that the purpose of my posts is not merely for your benefit, but also for the benefit of the many silent viewers who will read these words. Thank you. This is quite noble of you. When you can't rebut the evident points, and you place me on ignore (sticking your head in the sand) you are doing exactly the thing that others must see. You are proving that your science is religion, because you believe it, after it has been shown to be erroneous. You flee when you can't find an answer, and like the universities that know what the truth is but tend to hide it, you would silence me if you could. Tell you what. It's a lot easier for me to not have to respond to you. And since there are others who will, over the course of time, speak of the things that you and I have spoken of, there will be discussion. The truth of the religious aspect of science and its unholy order of fake high-priest scientists will come out. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you are right when speaking about science I am right about everything. I realize that there are lots of things against what is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/. However, there is enough in favor of electric cosmos things, that the nuclear star idea should be in the realm of theory if it isn't. . The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank to crank author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[2] EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory, and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). One subset of the latter comprises some of the more loony global warming deniers (such as Vault-Co), who try to use it to "prove" that climate change is being caused by some process outside human control. Claims-Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents. -Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[3] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[4] -The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged -- the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney's particular erroneous belief.) 1 http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1540489/pg1#254332602 http://www.theplasmaverse.com/pdfs/the-electic-sky-book-by-donaldescott-review-discussion-against.pdf3 http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/However, that isn't the only thing spoken/written about the electric cosmos idea. There are some very compelling points to it. The other thing is true as well. That is that standard science has within itself some things that are accepted that could be considered pseudo-science. The "theory" part of the scientific method, while necessary as a method for gaining knowledge, borders pseudo-science at times, and even dips into what pseudo-science is once in a while. For example, Rupert Sheldrake has brought up some very interesting points about science, the scientific method, the constants, and the politics of science, in his banned TED video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg. There is no way for anyone to really know where the fuzzy division between science fact and science fiction really lies. The boundaries are probably in flux all the time. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ted+rupert+sheldrake |
|
|
|
So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.
But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.
WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?
Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.
Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.
i think religion was made by people for the people, so that they learn discipline, stay focused and absorb some good character. but there are lots of things which need explanation. atheists refuse to believe in things which do not have any physical presence. they find it illogical to follow something blindly. but this is not the reason for hating religion. the main problem with religion is it creates divide among the people who can be united. secondly it is also being used as a business tool (at least here). may be main reason for hating religion.. This ^^ thinking is reasonable. Many atheists use the word "atheism" incorrectly. They are not atheists as much as they are agnostics. I think that it is similar for the word "religion." I don't know what word would be a good word to take the place of "religion," but some of the dictionary definitions for both words, "atheism" and "religion," are not what people often think of. In fact, some of the definitions of both words overlap, making atheism fall within the classification as a religion... and maybe religion fall within the classification as atheism a little. |
|
|
|
Science simply isn't (for the most part) out there trying to prove the existence of angels. Science isn't out there trying to prove anything, that's the difference between faith and science. Science is out there trying to disprove everything that can be disproven. It's called skepticism. You should try it some time. Perhaps you are right when speaking about science in the "pure" sense. But because there are many times the lay people who use the word "science" as there are real scientists, and because some of the real scientists along with some politicians corrupt pure expression of real science so that the wrong idea is given to the lay people, and because some scientists are dreamers and express their dreams in connection with science, the word "science" has taken on meaning that is different than the thing that you express above. things like Big Bang, Evolution, Black Holes, the idea that stars are nuclear when electric arc law fits star activity better Stars are nuclear fusion. That is a scientific fact, like evolution, gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics. I realize that there are lots of things against what is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/. However, there is enough in favor of electric cosmos things, that the nuclear star idea should be in the realm of theory if it isn't. |
|
|
|
I care I care as well. I just am not crazy about being a Christian missionary where some Muslim will chop off my head for trying to save his soul. Muslims don't care. That's not why they "evangelize." They do it because they are following orders. Some Christians evangelize because they are following orders. But many Christian evangelizers actually care. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
