warri0r45

It certainly implies it. What point does atheism give to the universe? Atheism is not something. It's a lack of something - god belief, and that's the extent of what atheism entails on a base level. Atheism assigns no point to anything nor does it say anything is pointless (so what you quoted is accurate), however atheists can assign their own meaning to things.

The example is kind of irrelevant if I understand and agree with you, which I do. You'd of course not want to give people the impression that just because they can assign whatever meaning they want on something and that they see great meaning in their faith above some sort of universal proof dosen't make what that faith is focused on true (I know you don't think this). Need I bring up how kids see great meaning in their childhood imaginary friends?

Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something. There's also a difference of opinion in that I find the universal to be inspiring, meaningful, and engaging, while you find the individual to harbor those qualities :P . I was basically going to mirror what you say here. I personally see more meaning in the universally known than the individually believed. Difference of opinion. Let me use an example, I understand you have a love of music correct? Now what has more meaning to you, the cords and the technical aspect of music that anyone can appreciate, or your individual interpretation of music, the lyrics and the way it affects you? I see value in the technical aspects of music, but I see no real meaningful engagement I can have with it. On the other hand my interpretation of music can move me and it affects me, it is more meaningful to me. I understand 'meaningful' is subjective and therefore faith can be more meaningful than some sort of scientific proof for some people. If you'd like me to amend my original comment I'll make it "you can't meaningfully prove god with science."

"Korn are my favourite heavy metal band."

Can't say it's ever happened to me. What difference did it make? It's hard to explain exactly why my perception of smoke changed, but I'd probably put it down to my dad smoking a few in the house about an hour before I got up. All the doors and windows were closed and the smoke would have been cycling through the aircon endlessly. I don't know the dynamics of smoke or if it goes 'off' over time but I'd say there was probably something wierd going on because of the total and utter lack of air flow moving the smoke into the atmosphere. I dunno. Just not advisable is all I'd say.

I'm pretty sure cyclic models don't go against the big bang, it's good science as far as I'm aware - they do incorporate it and just say it is but one 'beginning' of an arbitrary number before it. There is no 'point' to atheism. What's the point of the word 'asymmetrical'? It's to tell you that something is not symmetrical. What's the point of being an 'atheist'? On a base level, it's to tell you I'm not a theist. It says nothing of what else we might assign meaning to, as it seems Lewis would have you believe.

Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something. There's also a difference of opinion in that I find the universal to be inspiring, meaningful, and engaging, while you find the individual to harbor those qualities :P . I was basically going to mirror what you say here. I personally see more meaning in the universally known than the individually believed. Difference of opinion.

A Devil in God's Country by Lamb of God

Sorry to go all bleeding heart on everyone but I think something like this is more significant and news worthy. It's kind of sad how 'that's just Africa' and whenever something like this happens in the western world (even on a rediculously small scale relative to Africa), it's worth being on the news or having it's own topic. Yeah, yeah, I totally understand the dynamic of having novel news, not just day after day of 'africa is still knee deep in crap' (figuratively speaking) but still, it's pretty sad.

I've got a little throwaway - have you ever smoked in an airconditioned environment? My motivation for asking this is that prior to such and.. episode.. smoke didn't bother me. Ever since, the smell is personally repulsive. I'm just wondering if you have been in such a scenario, did it change your smell of the smoke?

(1) This is why a belief in God is internal and inexpressible, if you are looking for a way to logically describe a personÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s faith or them to tell you why they think their belief is true in this sense, then you will misunderstand this concept. (2) You may regard something which does not reflect the logical world as a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åcop outÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Do you lose taste of foods, etc? Can you notice or was it just to gradual to notice any change? Anyway I've got nothing particularly against it, just as long as you're mindful of others.

The whole broad concept of god is a cop out to me as there's absolutely no way to meaninfully prove or disprove it. All you rely on are what you'd like to assume his characteristics are and faith in your chosen perception of god and to me, the idea that someone can conclude the truth in something based solely on the notion that we think it would be dandy and explain something is nonsense, but that's just me. I'm the kind of guy that requires some sort of answer tested against reality. But yeah, I suppose you can argue against perceptions of god based on a strict interpretation of a holy book.

Music.

If you claim he's outside logic then there's no point even talking about it is there? The interesting thing is any attempt you use to logically deduce a god and/or any of his characteristics or understand him at all would see you at a dead end because 'he's outside of logic'. How can your feeble brain comprehend or even state that he has characteristics x, y, z and he did a, b, c? Methinks your brain would have to string together some logic there, yeah? Sorry, that to me is just a royal cop out.

Do you realize how bad a person that believed there was a God would get jumped for making a statement like this? True, except god can't be tested beyond any reasonable doubt. Scientific hypotheses and in some cases theories can. How could you possibly prove god to any degree based on tested hypotheses like you can natural phenomena? The only way I could think of is to hypothesise god by claiming ignorance of a natural phenomenon (i.e. existance itself or in past times life and in ancient times, the wind, the rain thunder and lightning, etc) and then claim that a god with the characteristics of being transcendent, infinite and all powerful, etc, did it. Problem is you can't test the hypotheses of the entities characteristics. In priniple I can show you the tested hypotheses that go some way to 'prove' the big bang theory yet it's impossible for the god hypothesis to be tested because you can't verify or falsify that god has the characteristics it's claimed he has.

*Hits Back* Pfft Queenslanders. :P Haha, I just love that sig dude, I really do. What was that, the stolen try to win the 06' series? :P

So what you're trying to say is that the theory above can be most likely be proven? This is what separates the idea/possibility from reality. It is possible for scientists to overlook certain facts and neglect the small factors making it quite different from what it's supposed do in theory and what it's supposed to do in real life. You can't just assume that theories are most likely proven to be a fact just because there is a high possibility that it may be a fact. Unless you're 100% sure. Underlined: Scientists are trying to figure out what dark matter/dark energy does, how it exists and how it affects certain theories. (Especially in space.) This is still being done as we speak. The words/phrases 'proven' and '100% sure' aren't scientific. I'm telling you that we can be sure of a theory to a high degree (in some cases to the extent where it would be perverse to withold provisional consent, i.e. not accept it as a tentative fact) to the extent where no other 'possibilities' look at all compelling, i.e. the evidence sides firmly on one side of the fence. We don't need to prove something 100% to be sure and yes, there can be grey areas and unknowns in a theory while still being confident that it is accurate.

Do I have to bold/caps/underline this quote? Dictionaries? I'll say it again : In this instance, in this instance, in this instance. So much for being smart by suggesting that I should use a dictionary when I had already mentioned what I've quoted. BlueLancer's NOW I know how you feel. 8-) Dude, whether you say in this instance or not dosen't change the fact that your definition of the word "theory" in relation to the big bang theory is a misrepresentation and just not apt.

I'd slap paperclips, I'd kiss Rick because, hell I already have on his 18th and I'd miss warrior, don't think a discussion would be a discussion without him. Aww, thanks. I'd miss you too goddess. :P And @ eels, haha, I see the resentment of that sig is still brewing, huh? (btw pineapples are better than... uh... whatever it is you cockroaches grow down there. :uhh: )

Yes, and the 'god theory' has nothing to do with the miststatements of fact etc that I took up with you. Sure, there may have been a god that started the big bang, but really, that's not what I responded to you about. By the way your definition of theory needs a little work. A theory is a system of explanation regarding the natural world that can be very well supported and for all intents and purposes be considered "proven". The big bang theory is a well supported cosmological model for the change of the universe over time based on tested hypotheses and is not just one of many 'possibilities' that are 'unproven'. The language there dosen't suit the reality of the situation.

Well.... in the very beginning I was expressing my own opinion and minding my own business. That is, until BlueLancer stabbed my brain with a knife made out of words. Thanks to him, I can't sleep soundly last night (no, seriously) and I had a bad headache. Even as I'm typing right now, I can't seem to get his "knife" out of my brain. What's worse is that Mr. Warrior here intervened between the 2 lancers post exchanges. (A forum mod vs a newb mod.) You just HAD to make people's lives more miserable. :roll: Btw, You started posting to me and telling me the "fallancy-atrocious-crap" that I was saying. Aka you started it. :notalk: And I don't want to hear any augmentum-latin-whatever unless it's from an exorcism ritual. 8-) You are entitled to your opinion but if it involves errors in fact or logic then people are gonna pick you up on that. It's really very simple. You claimed that the soul and afterlife were scientifically proven. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this isn't true and anyone who has knowledge of the nature of science will know why, i.e. you can't test these philosophical/religious notions and 'prove' them in the way that science does. You also used faulty logic, including the notion that the longer an idea is kept and the more people that believe in it, the more true it must be. Anyone with a little grasp of logic or the concept of how we come to know whether something is true or not will know that popular or pervasive dosen't always necessarily mean true nor is it a logical basis to conclude something is true. Do you think that at the time, those that believed that the sun revolved around the earth were correct just because most people accepted this notion? You've just gotta think about this a little more and think about what you post. I'm not trying to be mean or anything and sorry for calling you 'special', it's just more often than not people will pick you up on misstatements of fact or errors in logic and will expect you to back up what you claim a bit more and get your facts right.

I like the planet and landscape.

lolololololololol Dude, seriously, your statement is an absolute insult to scientists worldwide. Here's a link to one of many proofs that it is possible to break lightspeed barrier http://frontiersciences.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!A1E4CC21DE41A7DD!169.entry warri0r45's No, really, you're insulting Science. Bigtime. 8-) warri0r45's And WHO are you to say that? can you give me evidence that my statement is false? :roll: warri0r45's Yes, that is another factor that prevents the observer from seeing the core of the black hole. :wall: lolololololololol I would have said the same or attempted to talk some sense into Mr. Freelancer there but I think he's a little to 'special' for that.

-5 internets. The board color scheme. You can set it in your profile =) Ahk, thanks.