Rebdragon Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 dpattle, nothing is proven in this world. Things are just disproved, and then we accept that the things we cannot disprove through the scientific method as being proven with 100% certainty (if these results can be repeated). We "don't know" that the Earth revolves around the sun. We "don't know" that cells exist. All theories are "still being developed". That is what science is, and that is why it's a theory. Exactly, its a theory, it could infact still be wrong! so why state it as a fact and put it higher than religion?? Were you dropped on your head when you were a baby? Or are you really just so obnoxious that you'd want to go over the 'definition of a theory' argument for the forty-seventh time on this thread? [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryto Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Hundreds of years from now archealogists find a superman comic. They find, that in it, it talks of buildings and cities that do indeed exist. Does it mean the subject matter is true? Could you clarify something for me? I'm a bit confused when you say archaelogists....are you referring to human archaelogists, or future archaelogists of a different race/species? It doesn't matter. The point is that just because some parts of a book turn out to be true, doesn't mean we can accept the rest. Just because we know that New York City, the Empire State Building, and The USA exist, doesn't mean there's a super powerful alien who can fly and stop bullets roaming around. The same goes that just because we know that some of the historical stuff in the bible is true, doesn't mean there's an all powerful cloud being floating around. We know that some of the historical events that occur in the Odyssey and the Iliad actually happened. Does that mean Poseidon rules the seas and there's nymphs and dryads about? Of course not. When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~Jonathan SwiftWebsite Updates/Corrections here. WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT! Crewbie's Missions!Contributor of the Day!Thanks to artists: Destro3979, Guthix121, Shivers21, and Unoalexi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmanpur3 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Hundreds of years from now archealogists find a superman comic. They find, that in it, it talks of buildings and cities that do indeed exist. Does it mean the subject matter is true? Could you clarify something for me? I'm a bit confused when you say archaelogists....are you referring to human archaelogists, or future archaelogists of a different race/species? It doesn't matter. The point is that just because some parts of a book turn out to be true, doesn't mean we can accept the rest. Just because we know that New York City, the Empire State Building, and The USA exist, doesn't mean there's a super powerful alien who can fly and stop bullets roaming around. The same goes that just because we know that some of the historical stuff in the bible is true, doesn't mean there's an all powerful cloud being floating around. We know that some of the historical events that occur in the Odyssey and the Iliad actually happened. Does that mean Poseidon rules the seas and there's nymphs and dryads about? Of course not. It most certainly matters...I have 2 different approaches I can take as far as responding to that. Either you're referring to archaelogists of our current human race and I can explain why that's a silly statement, or you're referring to imaginary archaelogists of a race that comes about after us and I can explain how that's not a good comparison to the bible. May the presents of our lord and savior, Santa, be with you this holiday season!First annual Clausmas - 2009 December 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Actually the Illiad and Odyseey are a perfect example, they are based off of history but clearly have the authors own personal interjections. Which is what the bible is, a historical document with a lot of spin to prove a point. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryto Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Hundreds of years from now archealogists find a superman comic. They find, that in it, it talks of buildings and cities that do indeed exist. Does it mean the subject matter is true? Could you clarify something for me? I'm a bit confused when you say archaelogists....are you referring to human archaelogists, or future archaelogists of a different race/species? It doesn't matter. The point is that just because some parts of a book turn out to be true, doesn't mean we can accept the rest. Just because we know that New York City, the Empire State Building, and The USA exist, doesn't mean there's a super powerful alien who can fly and stop bullets roaming around. The same goes that just because we know that some of the historical stuff in the bible is true, doesn't mean there's an all powerful cloud being floating around. We know that some of the historical events that occur in the Odyssey and the Iliad actually happened. Does that mean Poseidon rules the seas and there's nymphs and dryads about? Of course not. It most certainly matters...I have 2 different approaches I can take as far as responding to that. Either you're referring to archaelogists of our current human race and I can explain why that's a silly statement, or you're referring to imaginary archaelogists of a race that comes about after us and I can explain how that's not a good comparison to the bible. Say it's humans then, but I still don't see how it could matter at all. I like my Odyssey example better anyhow. Just because some things are true in a document doesn't mean that the whole thing is true, and to argue the opposite is inane. *writes document telling of Obama's inauguration as President of The United States. Later on, states that Obama turned out to be a mutant super being that controls time itself. Expects document to be taken as truthfully as the bible, because some of it is true.* (yes, there are different reasons why the bible's main subject matter is taken as truthful, but that's not the point I'm attacking. Just because something says some truthful things, does not mean everything else it says is true or even likely) When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~Jonathan SwiftWebsite Updates/Corrections here. WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT! Crewbie's Missions!Contributor of the Day!Thanks to artists: Destro3979, Guthix121, Shivers21, and Unoalexi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmanpur3 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 And I don't think anybody's ever claimed otherwise... May the presents of our lord and savior, Santa, be with you this holiday season!First annual Clausmas - 2009 December 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 And I don't think anybody's ever claimed otherwise... dpattle tried to claim the bible was accurate because it has some things in it that match history. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_love_burritos Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 dpattle, nothing is proven in this world. Things are just disproved, and then we accept that the things we cannot disprove through the scientific method as being proven with 100% certainty (if these results can be repeated). We "don't know" that the Earth revolves around the sun. We "don't know" that cells exist. All theories are "still being developed". That is what science is, and that is why it's a theory. Exactly, its a theory, it could infact still be wrong! so why state it as a fact and put it higher than religion?? Were you dropped on your head when you were a baby? Or are you really just so obnoxious that you'd want to go over the 'definition of a theory' argument for the forty-seventh time on this thread? Reb, you seem like a hardline radical atheist. You have anything against people religiously motivated ? Calm down, you'll die from hypertension (High blood pressure) Let him be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattle Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 dpattle, nothing is proven in this world. Things are just disproved, and then we accept that the things we cannot disprove through the scientific method as being proven with 100% certainty (if these results can be repeated). We "don't know" that the Earth revolves around the sun. We "don't know" that cells exist. All theories are "still being developed". That is what science is, and that is why it's a theory. Exactly, its a theory, it could infact still be wrong! so why state it as a fact and put it higher than religion?? Were you dropped on your head when you were a baby? Or are you really just so obnoxious that you'd want to go over the 'definition of a theory' argument for the forty-seventh time on this thread? Reb, you seem like a hardline radical atheist. You have anything against people religiously motivated ? Calm down, you'll die from hypertension (High blood pressure) Let him be. \ \ \ \ \ \ :P :P :P :P Lolz, jk. i like how this thread has little by little finally died down. [hide=]You think you got it bad?My school blocks Neopets.Those dirty bastards try to keep me from feeding my Ixi. Ha![/hide]Important Slayer Drops: masks-8, leafbladed sword, gmaul-3Important treasure trail rewards: zammy page 1(3), rune kite g, zammy crozier, sara mitre, sara dhide, rune helm h1, guth page 4(2), zammy full helm, guth legs(3), sara chaps, guth page 3, zammy legs(2), and sara full helm, zammy pl8, zammy page 2, rune cane, sara page, sara crozier, zammy crozier, guth coif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Exactly, its a theory, it could infact still be wrong! so why state it as a fact and put it higher than religion?? Were you dropped on your head when you were a baby? Or are you really just so obnoxious that you'd want to go over the 'definition of a theory' argument for the forty-seventh time on this thread? Reb, you seem like a hardline radical atheist. You have anything against people religiously motivated ? Calm down, you'll die from hypertension (High blood pressure) Let him be. Are you saying you agree with him, saying that any religion has as much validity as the theory of gravity? If not, why defend him spreading the stupid, and if so, why succumb to the stupid? [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 It is true he's wrong reb, but you went a little overboard with the being dropped on your head analogy. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0nkeym0j030 Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 How many times do i have to say this? THE BANANA AND COCONUT CREAM PIE ARE GOD(S). WHY CANT WE JUST LISTEN TO THIS GUY? sheesh. Epic Win. <3 =D> (bleep) All haters I see, Cause I hate that you breath, I see you duck you little punk you lil freakin disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_love_burritos Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 It is true he's wrong reb, but you went a little overboard with the being dropped on your head analogy. All I was pointing out, Reb. No need to be angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Are you saying you agree with him, saying that any religion has as much validity as the theory of gravity? If not, why defend him spreading the stupid, and if so, why succumb to the stupid? Why is it unfair to equate pure uncertainty (god) with minor uncertainty (big bang), but it's fair to equate pure certainty (FSM) with pure uncertainty (god)? "God might exist." "The big bang most likely did exist." He pointed out the uncertainty in both of these claims. "God might not exist." "FSM definitely does not exist." Atheists point out the the possibility that they both don't exist in both of these claims, even though it's already certain that FSM doesn't exist. So wouldn't that make the "big bang theory = religion" a better analogy than "FSM = god"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meol Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Why is it unfair to equate pure uncertainty (god) with minor uncertainty (big bang), but it's fair to equate pure certainty (FSM) with pure uncertainty (god)? "God might exist." "The big bang most likely did exist." He pointed out the uncertainty in both of these claims. "God might not exist." "FSM definitely does not exist." Atheists point out the the possibility that they both don't exist in both of these claims, even though it's already certain that FSM doesn't exist. So wouldn't that make the "big bang theory = religion" a better analogy than "FSM = god"? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a means to show the impossibility of proving a negative ("God/FSM does not exist") and how easy it is for humans to make a story explaining supernatural events, afterlife and the creation of the universe. They are compared because, as you said, both cases are pure uncertainty. However, the Big Bang isn't something made up of pure imagination, but it's a theory that's supported by scientific observation and is backed up by evidence. Whereas God certainly is not supported by any scientific evidence. That's why it's unfair to compare the Big Bang with God. This signature is intentionally left blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 It is true he's wrong reb, but you went a little overboard with the being dropped on your head analogy. All I was pointing out, Reb. No need to be angry. After 100 pages of explaining the definition of a theory and failing to get it through many theists heads, you eventually begin to feel a need to either a) kill oneself, or B) find a different means to get them to listen. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Maybe instead of the Big Bang, there's just a butthole galaxy in the "center" of the universe. All the other galaxies hate him, so they flee. Meh. More evidence than some of my other theories. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Maybe instead of the Big Bang, there's just a butthole galaxy in the "center" of the universe. All the other galaxies hate him, so they flee. Meh. More evidence than some of my other theories. Obviously meant as a joke I know but I have to point this out. The big bang theory is valid because it doesnt claim the cause of the expansion, prove galaxies have free will or your idea has no validity. Also, the fact the big bang theory doesnt claim the cause is why it can work with religion. If you want to believe god caused the expansion of the universe okay, if you think its just the working of physics okay. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Hm. True. Perhaps there are sentient species that rule most of every galaxy, and they hate the folks in the "center". So they made the galaxies flee. I guess that's better. Although I suppose the Big Bang's about the best we got. Throw God in there, say maybe He bumped into some atom or another, and boom. Universe. Wonder what the Big Bang coulda looked like... catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattle Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 It is true he's wrong reb, but you went a little overboard with the being dropped on your head analogy. All I was pointing out, Reb. No need to be angry. After 100 pages of explaining the definition of a theory and failing to get it through many theists heads, you eventually begin to feel a need to either a) kill oneself, or B) find a different means to get them to listen. I dont remember what page exactly i came in and i dont feel like looking it up...but I certainly didn't read the 140+ pages before me. read like 5 pages in all before i started, so soz if i annoyed you a bit. [hide=]You think you got it bad?My school blocks Neopets.Those dirty bastards try to keep me from feeding my Ixi. Ha![/hide]Important Slayer Drops: masks-8, leafbladed sword, gmaul-3Important treasure trail rewards: zammy page 1(3), rune kite g, zammy crozier, sara mitre, sara dhide, rune helm h1, guth page 4(2), zammy full helm, guth legs(3), sara chaps, guth page 3, zammy legs(2), and sara full helm, zammy pl8, zammy page 2, rune cane, sara page, sara crozier, zammy crozier, guth coif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Good. Now, do you know the difference between a layman's usage of the term "theory" and a scientist's? [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a means to show the impossibility of proving a negative ("God/FSM does not exist") and how easy it is for humans to make a story explaining supernatural events, afterlife and the creation of the universe. They are compared because, as you said, both cases are pure uncertainty. When it's used to show the purpose of the burden of proof, I agree that it's fine. What I don't agree with is when people relate them by saying there is no evidence for either one so that must mean they're both equally ridiculous claims. "God is not real because the FSM is not real. God is just as likely as the FSM." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 "God is not real because the FSM is not real. God is just as likely as the FSM." Nobody is suggesting that god is not real because the FSM is not real. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The people that subscribe to pastafarianism and don't actually understand it disagree there. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_love_burritos Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 It is true he's wrong reb, but you went a little overboard with the being dropped on your head analogy. All I was pointing out, Reb. No need to be angry. After 100 pages of explaining the definition of a theory and failing to get it through many theists heads, you eventually begin to feel a need to either a) kill oneself, or B) find a different means to get them to listen. You're anger has clouded your judgment Reb. You must look within yourself to save yourself from your other self. Only then will your true self reveal itself. After 3 responses, saying that you need to calm down. You still haven't. I was not talking about theorys, or how to define a theory, or various interpretations of the meaning of the word theory. I was not defending what Dpattle was saying. I made a simple statment which you read too much into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now