Author Topic: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?  (Read 13227 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #319 on: August 05, 2014, 01:36:43 PM »
Dark matter has been mentioned.  Does dark matter exist?  How is it defined?  Where is the evidence?  From what I have read it's just "matter of the gaps".  "We don't know, therefore dark matter didit/doesit.

You are correct that in a sense it is "matter of the gaps".  dark matter is a place holder.  The universe behaves (mathematically) as if there were more matter out there than we can see.  But that is not the same as a god of the gaps.  With dark matter, it is an acknowledgment of ignorance.  It is also an investigation.  We can mathematically model it and make predictions as to where and how we would find it.  Then we look for it.  If we cannot find it, we need a better explanation.  In this way, no matter what, our knowledge gets bigger.

You cannot do that with god.  You do not acknowledge it is ignorance.  It is not an investigation.  It is the end of the of conversation.  You cannot make mathematical models to predict where and how to detect it. And you most definitely do not go out and try to find god, because you know you won't.  Your god dwells in our collective ignorance.  But that is a dangerous place, because as our knowledge gets bigger, your god gets smaller. 



If they were exactly the same then I would believe in them all, but I don't.  Neither does anyone else.  There is a difference.  What is it?

Now you are nit-picking.  Okay, fine.  your silly god is a little different than Vlad the Plane Chucker.  For one, they have different names. For two, one has been around a lot longer.  As for why you believe one or the other, I would say that has to do with the fact that you only just learned about Vlad.  It is hard to replace gods already in people's minds.  Perhaps if you'd grown up having been told by everyone you loved and trusted that Vlad was real and truly kept airplanes aloft, then you would believe that.


So you mean incomplete evidence can cause wrong conclusions?  I agree.  I find it odd you call those stupid ideas since they were based on available evidence?  Might your ideas also be stupid then?

I am sure some of my ideas are stupid.  It is guaranteed.  And you are right that those I mentioned ideas were the best they could do with the information they had at the time.  If I'd lived 2500 years ago, I would have believed those stupid ideas.

The question I have is this: you have much more information than they did 2500 years ago, so why do you believe 2500 year old, stupid ideas? 

I didn't say anything about popularity.

I beg your pardon, but you did.  And you added an appeal to authority right after:
But many have pondered the existence of God.  Even Steven Hawking and Einstein have pondered his existence. 

Reasonable people have not pondered the existence of Vladmir.  Why?  What's the difference?

Vladimir is a new god.  He's just started making a name for himself.  Even yhwh had to do that.  That was what the whole 10 plagues was about.  yhwh making a name for himself.

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5611
  • Darwins +184/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #320 on: August 05, 2014, 01:38:26 PM »
You can't prove or disprove any god.... Being that they are of earth adjacent or astral,can't be seen or detected,require faith to be believed in and are seemingly not accessible to everybody.Santa on the other hand can be searched for as we know his location for 364 days a year. We can send an expedition to his known location(North Pole) and we can either confirm or disprove his existence. You simply can't do this with any god.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2387
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #321 on: August 05, 2014, 01:57:14 PM »
Perhaps if you'd grown up having been told by everyone you loved and trusted that Vlad was real and truly kept airplanes aloft, then you would believe that.

I wonder what some of the aboriginal native people deep in the Amazon, with little to no knowledge of the modern world, think of airplanes passing overhead?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5611
  • Darwins +184/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #322 on: August 05, 2014, 02:00:04 PM »
Perhaps if you'd grown up having been told by everyone you loved and trusted that Vlad was real and truly kept airplanes aloft, then you would believe that.

I wonder what some of the aboriginal native people deep in the Amazon, with little to no knowledge of the modern world, think of airplanes passing overhead?
their gods work in mysterious ways,are showing themselves and are sending messages to reach for the skies?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #323 on: August 05, 2014, 02:08:10 PM »
You are correct that in a sense it is "matter of the gaps".  dark matter is a place holder.  The universe behaves (mathematically) as if there were more matter out there than we can see.  But that is not the same as a god of the gaps.  With dark matter, it is an acknowledgment of ignorance.  It is also an investigation.  We can mathematically model it and make predictions as to where and how we would find it.  Then we look for it.  If we cannot find it, we need a better explanation.  In this way, no matter what, our knowledge gets bigger.

But there may not be more matter at all.

Quote
You cannot do that with god.  You do not acknowledge it is ignorance.

I do not know what you mean.  I don't say God did everything I don't understand.  For example, I don't claim that dark matter is God.

Quote
Now you are nit-picking.  Okay, fine.  your silly god is a little different than Vlad the Plane Chucker.  For one, they have different names. For two, one has been around a lot longer.  As for why you believe one or the other, I would say that has to do with the fact that you only just learned about Vlad.  It is hard to replace gods already in people's minds.  Perhaps if you'd grown up having been told by everyone you loved and trusted that Vlad was real and truly kept airplanes aloft, then you would believe that.

I was raised with a belief in Santa.  I don't still believe in him.  I figured it out all on my own.  Even after I figured it out my parents tried to keep up the charade.  What is the difference?

Quote
The question I have is this: you have much more information than they did 2500 years ago, so why do you believe 2500 year old, stupid ideas?

Because I don't see any stupid ideas.  I believe God created the universe but that doesn't mean I have to believe he did it all with magical pixie dust.  Because some people have doesn't make all gods false.  Perhaps everyone's concept of God, although varied, is still based in fact.

Quote
I beg your pardon, but you did.  And you added an appeal to authority right after

A reference to the others is not alway a fallacy.  I never said Hawking or Einstein were an authority.  I said they've both pondered the existence of God but not Santa.  Why?  That is not a fallacy.

 


Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5611
  • Darwins +184/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #324 on: August 05, 2014, 02:46:04 PM »
So I take it your parents are not JW's? If they were Santa would never had been a thing in your house.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #325 on: August 05, 2014, 02:49:04 PM »
But there may not be more matter at all.

That misses the point by a long shot.

Let me try one more time.  After that, you are on your own.

We have found mathematical formulas that seem to very accurately predict how matter in the universe behaves.  We call these forumlas "laws".  When we look at The Big Picture, things appear to be a bit off.  Assuming our formulas are correct, The Big Picture would be corrected if we added a bunch of matter to the equations. 

Quote
Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter because of discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust. It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
(good link to read, btw)

That does not mean there is actually invisible matter.  Or more matter, as you point out.  It could be the formulas are wrong (MOND).  It could be something else we don't know about (TeVeS).  Dark Matter is not taken as rock solid, actual thing in the science community, particularly since part of the hypothesis is "we can't see it".  And it hasn't been found.  Until someone finds dark matter, it is an acknowledged place holder for things we don't know.

That is the point.  It is qualitatively different than god of the gaps.  We are saying, "we don't know what it is right now and we're working on it, but in the mean time we'll call it Dark Matter."  God is when you don't know something, call it god and the conversation stops.

I do not know what you mean.  I don't say God did everything I don't understand.  For example, I don't claim that dark matter is God.

Evolution?
Big Bang?
And what is keeping you from saying, "Dark Matter is god"?  Why not?

I was raised with a belief in Santa.  I don't still believe in him.

Would that be true if your parents and everyone in the country believed in him, and when you suggested otherwise they corrected you and said you could be punished eternally for saying such a foolish thing?  Come on.  Look at everything that reinforces your belief in god, none of which is actual evidence of god.  You attend services.  You pray.  Most, if not all, of your friends and family also believe.  All these cultural things support your belief.

Because I don't see any stupid ideas. 

No, you hold stupid ideas. 

I believe God created the universe

So you believe at least one dumb idea.  Good.  We've identified it.  Now, let's get to work correcting it.

but that doesn't mean I have to believe he did it all with magical pixie dust.

Magical pixie dust, speaking it into existence, same thing.  Why do you think magic requires you speak the magic words?

Perhaps everyone's concept of God, although varied, is still based in fact.

No.  It's not.  It is based in ignorance.  If it were based in fact you would not have to argue with me.  You could show me the wiki link that shows pictures of god or talks about how the data points to god.  To date, there is no data on god.

A reference to the others is not alway a fallacy.

I don't believe I said it was.  But in context, it looked very much like your argument was "lots of people think so".

I never said Hawking or Einstein were an authority.

You don't have to, do you?  They are recognized authorities in a particular field and they are famous.  Why else would you bring them up?  Why not say, "my neighbor Eunice and my plumber Rick ponder it..."? 


edit: corrections in blue
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 07:26:25 AM by screwtape »
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2940
  • Darwins +327/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #326 on: August 05, 2014, 02:54:36 PM »
You cannot do that with god.  You do not acknowledge it is ignorance.

I do not know what you mean.

That is the problem.

Comparing dark matter to a religion is not valid. Dark matter has known properties. It is not a ghost in the machine.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #327 on: August 05, 2014, 04:25:01 PM »
Jst, why don't you worship the sun as a god? It's not because of a book that says the only god is Jehovah. There are other books that say the only god is Allah, or Cao Dai, or Jah, and you do not believe them.

People all over the world in many different cultures used to worship the sun. If we were living one of those pre-scientific societies, you and I would be helping to prepare the slaves to be sacrificed to the sun god, so the universe would not end.

So, why did people stop doing that? If you can figure that out, then you will understand why we see belief in Jehovah, Cao Dai, Santa and the sun god to be exactly the same.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #328 on: August 06, 2014, 02:23:36 AM »
You can't prove or disprove any god.... Being that they are of earth adjacent or astral,can't be seen or detected,require faith to be believed in and are seemingly not accessible to everybody.Santa on the other hand can be searched for as we know his location for 364 days a year. We can send an expedition to his known location(North Pole) and we can either confirm or disprove his existence. You simply can't do this with any god.

I used to think that you couldn't prove or disprove a god, but you can depending on how that god is defined. If the god described is bound by logic then if you can find a contradiction you've shown that god to be impossible.

Also, if a god can't be disproved then it opens up a whole can of worms. How do you disprove Santa if you can't disprove god? Is this god not powerful enough to make Santa a reality? Can this god not trick us into thinking that it's actually us doing all the present buying, wrapping and eating of mince pies left on the fire place? This is the problem with an unfalsifiable, all powerful god - there's not much left that can be disproved. This is why we work with the presupposition that there is no Matrix - there is no ghost in the machine, all so we can continue to predict the probability of outcomes.
Christian: "My faith grows every day."
Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #329 on: August 06, 2014, 03:30:50 PM »
So I take it your parents are not JW's? If they were Santa would never had been a thing in your house.

No they are not.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #330 on: August 06, 2014, 04:14:36 PM »
That misses the point by a long shot.

Let me try one more time.  After that, you are on your own.

We have found mathematical formulas that seem to very accurately predict how matter in the universe behaves.  We call these forumlas "laws".  When we look at The Big Picture, things appear to be a bit off.  Assuming our formulas are correct, The Big Picture would be corrected if we added a bunch of matter to the equations. 

But only if you assume the formulas are correct.  That's confirmation bias, much like you do with God.  Newton's laws worked for many years until it was discovered they break down near high gravity objects.  I've heard it suggested that Einstien's theory may be similar in some way.  So more matter is not the only alternative.

Quote
That is the point.  It is qualitatively different than god of the gaps.

No it's not.  You have no way to confirm it's true.  That is, you have no evidence.  All you have is an assumption.  Your assumptions may be wrong just as Newton's were.

Quote
Evolution?
Big Bang?
And what is keeping you from saying, "Dark Matter is god"?  Why not?

Evolution occurs, however the entire theory has not been proven.  I also find biology very boring.  You won't find me debating evolution, but it is irrelevant to my faith.

The Big Bang in interesting, but also irrelevant to my faith.

I have no reason to say dark matter is God.

Here is a question for you.  How can you look at a universe and determine if it was created or not?  If you cannot then the topic is irrelevant when it comes to the existence of God.

Quote
Would that be true if your parents and everyone in the country believed in him, and when you suggested otherwise they corrected you and said you could be punished eternally for saying such a foolish thing?  Come on.  Look at everything that reinforces your belief in god, none of which is actual evidence of god.  You attend services.  You pray.  Most, if not all, of your friends and family also believe.  All these cultural things support your belief.

Maybe at one time, but not any longer.  Many atheists have believing families.  My family is very opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses so it doesn't get me any brownie points with anyone either.

Quote
No, you hold stupid ideas

I think you hold stupid ideas.  What now?

Quote
So you believe at least one dumb idea.  Good.  We've identified it.  Now, let's get to work correcting it.

Believing God did not create the universe is a dumb idea.  Do you see how I can do that too.  It's a worthless argument.

Quote
Magical pixie dust, speaking it into existence, same thing.  Why do you think magic requires you speak the magic words?

From my understanding of scripture, I take that to mean his words are a stated purpose.  He then brought about this purpose.  This pattern is established throughout scripture.  That is not a dumb idea at all.

Quote
No.  It's not.  It is based in ignorance.  If it were based in fact you would not have to argue with me.  You could show me the wiki link that shows pictures of god or talks about how the data points to god.  To date, there is no data on god.

What would data look like that pointed to God?  How would you know it if you saw it?  Your argument to me seems to be "because science exists, God does not".  If not, the a discussion about creation is irrelevant to a discussion about the existence of God.  What would a universe look like that was created by God?  How can you know if no evidence exists if you don't even know what evidence would be present?

Quote
You don't have to, do you?  They are recognized authorities in a particular field and they are famous.  Why else would you bring them up?  Why not say, "my neighbor Eunice and my plumber Rick ponder it..."?

They were referenced for intelligence not authority in any matter.  Why would highly intelligent people ponder the existence of God if the entire proposition is unreasonable?  Why will so many intelligent people not state for a fact that "God does not exist"?  That leads me to believe it is not entirely unreasonable.  Not only that but I don't see how it is unreasonable either.

If God did exist, how would you know?
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #331 on: August 06, 2014, 05:53:20 PM »
If god did exist, (depending on your definition of god*) it would be impossible to not know. Since a lot of us do not know, god, (depending on your definition of god*) does not exist.

The only way that we humans are ourselves to blame for doubting that god exists is if god is not all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. If he is all of those things, there would be no doubt whatsoever. How could there be? But if he was all of those things, the universe would look very different, now wouldn't it?

No excuses. No hand waving. No "it is not god's time to appear yet". No "you are choosing not to see him". No "he only shows up where he is wanted." No "he only shows up if you already have faith, sincerity, humility, diamond tiaras, etc in your heart."

God should not act like a spoiled rock diva refusing to perform if her preferred brand of bottled water is not in the dressing room.

He would just be unmistakeably there.

*If your definition of god includes descriptors like all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, than it is impossible that he would not be able and willing to appear before everyone in a manner that is completely and indisputably convincing. And, if it is vitally important for our well-being, eternal life, chance at paradise, etc, to know that he exists, he would most definitely be showing up in a way that nobody would be able to miss.

QED, babycakes.

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1081/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #332 on: August 07, 2014, 09:18:16 AM »
They were referenced for intelligence not authority in any matter.  Why would highly intelligent people ponder the existence of God if the entire proposition is unreasonable?  Why will so many intelligent people not state for a fact that "God does not exist"?  That leads me to believe it is not entirely unreasonable.  Not only that but I don't see how it is unreasonable either.
You should ask yourself why highly intelligent people don't ponder the existence of the sun.

Seriously - one very reasonable explanation for why many intelligent people ponder the existence of god is because there actually is no god in reality to serve as an observable referent.  That is, since god doesn't actually exist, there is no way for these intelligent people to do anything but ponder his existence.  They can imagine what god would be like.  They can imagine what god would or would not do.  But they cannot observe god.  They cannot interact with god.  They can in no way determine if their imaginings of god - their pondering of god - has any actual relationship to reality.

Imagine[1] a tribe of Morlocks who have lived deep underground for at least 50 generations.  They don't even have a concept of a sun.  Then, along comes Engelbert Humperdink, adventurer extraordinaire.  Engelbert has been on the surface of the planet.  Engelbert has seen the sun.

Engelbert describes this 'sun thingie' to the Morlocks, and then disappears in a puff of smoke.  Engelbert is gone.  Now, the brightest and mostest intelligentest of the Morlocks begin pondering about this alleged 'sun'.  The greatest elders of the Morlocks establish a council of high sears to continue pondering and deliberating on this 'existence of the sun' question.  They have arguments, debates, inflammatory Morlocktube comments, etc.  For years the Morlocks are pondering with each other back-and-forth regarding the existence of this alleged sun.

A total of 20 years goes by like this.  Finally, the great Morlock explorer James Mason decides to make a journey to the surface of the planet, to, well, just see if this alleged sun is actually there.  If the things described by Engelbert regarding this alleged sun match observable reality.  After a hard fight digging through rock (and a strange incident involving a battle with a giant spider), James and his team reach the surface of the planet.  They go down and inform the rest of their society of their findings, and invite others to make the trek to the surface.

Now - how long do you think this Morlock society will continue pondering the existence of the sun after this?

Quote
If God did exist, how would you know?
If I had no answer to this, on what basis would I believe that god does exist?
 1. or, ponder if you will
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +15/-41
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #333 on: August 07, 2014, 01:11:41 PM »
Your god dwells in our collective ignorance.  But that is a dangerous place, because as our knowledge gets bigger, your god gets smaller. 

but does knowledge get "bigger" as you say... or is knowledge more "indefinitely progressive", that is, i can believe that one day i will know that of which i am now ignorant... but with each piece of new knowledge comes a new set of questions...

are you suggesting that one day we will have ultimate knowledge of everything... kinda like "we have met the enemy, and it is us" except it's, "we are now omniscient, and we are god"...

that's an interesting idea...
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #334 on: August 07, 2014, 02:03:50 PM »
are you suggesting that one day we will have ultimate knowledge of everything...

No.
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +15/-41
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #335 on: August 07, 2014, 02:20:08 PM »
are you suggesting that one day we will have ultimate knowledge of everything...

No.

was that the long answer...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #336 on: August 07, 2014, 03:02:44 PM »
But only if you assume the formulas are correct.

I'm not assuming the formulas are correct!  jesus christ on a cracker!  I went out of my way to say:

That does not mean there is actually invisible matter.  Or more matter, as you point out.  It could be the formulas are wrong (MOND).  It could be something else we don't know about (TeVeS).

bold mine.  If dark matter is never found, then it is most definitely something else!  But right now the equations that are being used are not assumptions.  They are equations that were derived by observing reality.  Just like Newton's.  And they may not work at extremes, and so may have to be rebuilt.  Just like Newton's.

That's confirmation bias,

wtf?  Are all theists incapable of understanding what confirmation bias is? 
No, it is not confirmation bias.  Stop using words you do not understand.

Newton's laws worked for many years until it was discovered they break down near high gravity objects.

They still work.  It is not as if they no longer work.  Newton was not "wrong".  But you are correct that Newton's equations do not work at extremes.  Thus, relativity.  You do not want to use relativity to calculate the trajectory of a baseball.  It would be extremely cumbersome.  Newton would be close enough.

You don't seem to understand how all this works. The universe is.  The universe does.  The laws we come up with are our best current attempt to describe it.  Think of it as a map.  The map is representative of the terrain.  It might have mountains, creeks, roads.  But the map is not the territory.  The map might say if you take route xyz north for 20 miles you will end up in Jstville.  So you take route xyz north for 20 miles and find you needed to go 21 miles to get to Jstville.  So you correct the map.

The map is not the territory. 

So more matter is not the only alternative.

No shit.  I said as much.  Seriously, man.  Did you even read my post or did you just quote it and respond to random sentences?

No it's not.  You have no way to confirm it's true.  That is, you have no evidence.  All you have is an assumption.  Your assumptions may be wrong just as Newton's were.

Literally every sentence in this quote is wrong.  I think you do not know what the word "assumption" means.

And I don't know what your problem is that is getting in the way of you understanding a very simple point.  I am not going to discuss this with you any more. 

Evolution occurs, however the entire theory has not been proven.  I also find biology very boring.  You won't find me debating evolution, but it is irrelevant to my faith.

The Big Bang in interesting, but also irrelevant to my faith.

well, my apologies.  I have a hard time keeping track of the YECs around here.  Nevertheless, there are people who do think that, so my point stands.

Here is a question for you.  How can you look at a universe and determine if it was created or not?  If you cannot then the topic is irrelevant when it comes to the existence of God.

Why in the world would I even suspect it was "created"?  By whom? 


I think you hold stupid ideas.  What now?

We compare who's stupid ideas more closely predict reality.  On the stupid idea of someone creating the universe, you've got no tangible candidates and no credible explanation of who it was or where they came from or how they exist intependent from the universe.  Thus, at the moment, I appear to be ahead on points on that one.

That is not a dumb idea at all.

It is.

What would data look like that pointed to God?

That is not my problem.  It is not up to the Dark Matter Skeptic to define dark matter and how to find it. 

The fact that god is completely undetectable is by the design of the religious.  Because back when god was more like a guy and less like an abstract idea, they kept getting their god disproved by smart aleks like me.  So they defined god "outside time and space" and made him one that was not to be tested, because he kept failing the tests.

If I told you I had a completely undetectable dinosaur in the trunk of my car and it was impossible to collect data about him, what would you say?  I'd guess you'd tell me the dinosaur wasn't real.  The fact that god is supposedly completely undetectable, and impossible to collect data about, is a clue that he also probably is not real. 

Your argument to me seems to be "because science exists, God does not". 

No, that is not my argument. 

What would a universe look like that was created by God?

It depends on the god, yes?  And what do we actually know about god?  We have some things other people have said about god.  But lots of people have said lots of things about lots of gods, and most of it sounds patently crazy.  So we would need to have a way to differentiate between the crazy stuff and the credible stuff.  One way to do that would be to verify what has been said about gods.  Can any of it be verified?  That would be the first step.

If we assume a biblegod, then we would expect a very small, very young universe.  The earth would be flat.  It would have a dome over it.  There would be no western hemisphere.  Or Europe.  Or most of Asia.  The sediment of the soil would be sorted by size.  It would contain the remains of modern animals and plants at all levels.  The jews would literally rule the world.  yhwh would make an occasional appearance.  Magic would be possible.  There would somewhere be a Garden of Eden.  We would know because it would be guarded by cherubs with flaming swords.  We would not expect to be able to date tree rings back 10,000 years. 

That is just off the top of my head.
 
They were referenced for intelligence not authority in any matter.

Same thing.  "He's smart" is essentially the same as an appeal to authority.  Let's let this on lie, now, okay?

Why would highly intelligent people ponder the existence of God if the entire proposition is unreasonable?  Why will so many intelligent people not state for a fact that "God does not exist"?

Because even highly intelligent people believe ridiculous things.  Because highly intelligent people are also raised in a culture with ridiculous beliefs.  Because not all smart people are versed in the methods of rationality.
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-things/


If God did exist, how would you know?

I dunno.  You tell me.  You are supposed to be the expert. If I had to guess, I would say god would need to be defined differently first.  Because as defined now, there is no way at all to verify his identity.

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline fishjie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #337 on: August 07, 2014, 05:38:47 PM »
 test
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 05:40:27 PM by fishjie »

Offline fishjie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #338 on: August 07, 2014, 07:13:54 PM »
Don't you think the ickiness factor is subjective though?

yes, absolutely.  That is one reason why some people in modern society have no problem with the gays, and other people hate them virulently. 

What is considered disgusting changes over time.

yes, absolutely.  And it has a large cultural influence.  In parts of Asia they eat dogs, which we in the US find revolting.  They also tend to be more generally open to bisexuality.  "Hey man, a hole is a hole is a hole. Whatever feels good," seems to be the attitude.

In Roman cultures, male on male penetration was considered OK as long as you were on top.

I don't think you are quite accurate on the details on that one.

The reproductive factor isn't subjective.

That is what makes it an ideal post hoc rationalization.  Societies generally don't actually care about reproduction unless you are in an extreme situation like China, where there are too many people.

Morally, we make decisions emotionally, in our lizard brains.  Then we put the rational brain to work to justify it.  I really don't think we make the calculation that:
1. reproduction is important to maintain a society,
2. thus it must be moral 
3. Therefore, homosexualism is immoral and
4. makes me feel skeevy. 

It goes the other way. 
1. Homosexualism makes me feel skeeved out,
2. so it is immoral.

But the tribal elders, who do not have an understanding of human sexuality, might think homosexuality is "contagious". If this were true, it would clearly harm the tribe as a whole, because there would be less cave babies. So in response they would condemn it.

I don't think primitive elders cared.  I don't think they hassled couples who waited a couple years before popping out a kid or between kids.  I don't think there was a quota on reproduction or a minimum expected fertility rate.  I don't think reproduction was a conscious, rational priority they way you are suggesting.

And whether someone is gay or not, they often still want to have children.  Speaking from a man's perspective, having a wife and children is not mutually exclusive with banging other guys.  Let's take the ancient Greeks.  Men with men was quite in vogue.  But they still had wives because they still wanted children.

Thanks for those links, they are fascinating reading.

my pleasure

Regarding my statement about Romans engaging in male homosexual sex and that it was considered as long as you were the penetrator and not the penatratee, I remember that in my history lecture class, the few I bothered attending. Here's what wikipedia says about it, and if you really make me do my homework I'll try to find some legitimate sources in my old history textbooks since the part I quote has no citation to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role.
 

Offline fishjie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #339 on: August 07, 2014, 08:34:12 PM »
The forum keeps erroring out when I try to make this post, so breaking it out into multiple posts...

I think reproducing was a concern of most primitive tribal cultures. Reproduction ensured the survival of the tribe. So any memes that emphasized reproduction would be successful. If you look at most ancient civilizations, there are typically always some god of fertility and virility, and its typically a goddess and she is typically fat (venus figurines). So reproduction was very important to most cultures around the world. You do bring up a good point that it is possible to be gay and still marry a woman and have children. But of course that's what gay men would have to do back then. Ickiness is definitely a contributing factor, and I think the articles you shared definitely provide solid evidence. Here's a question though, why do you see much less outrage, past or present, over woman/woman?

In terms of "ickiness" it should be the same as man/man sex, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be the case in practice. I'd argue that most cultures past and present were patriarchal, so men were the sole focus. Men were defined in a lot of culture by fathering lots of young. So it was "unmanly" to engage in male/male relations, because it wouldn't result in children. And being "unmanly" was/is considered bad. Whereas women are free to have sex with women, because who cares if they're unmanly? They're female, they're not supposed to be manly.

Granted I'm not an anthropologist by training so I won't argue this religiously, and what you've posted has got me thinking about this some more.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #340 on: August 07, 2014, 08:52:25 PM »
I think screwtape makes a very good point. Back before people were using the scientific method, a person of authority could just say something and it was considered a fact. Nobody would even consider testing it to see if it was true. If the chief priest said that nobody can go over the mountain because they would get eaten by dragons, that was it. Nobody went. And if anyone challenged the priest, they might get thrown to the dragon gods at the bottom of the cliff.

Then, gradually, some brave crazies started actually testing the stuff "everyone knew" to be true.  With much pushback from the religious authorities, of course. And those brave crazies found that a lot of what "everyone knew" was not true at all. The earth was not the center of the solar system. Mating animals in front of striped sticks does not yield striped animals. Pigeon's blood does not cure leprosy. Praying over a sick child is less useful than boiling the water the child drinks. Doubt was cast on the revealed wisdom of the ages.

And science was born. Religion has been on the ropes, fighting back tooth and nail ever since.

There used to be lots of gods. They were everywhere. Gods used to interact much more openly with people, walking around in human or animal forms. They made babies with people, cursed people, healed people, possessed people, got jealous, got drunk, showed off their nether parts, granted wishes and in general, behaved like your retired but still active wacky grandparents (or maybe more like your step grandparents).

Gods did all kinds of fantastic magic back then. They did wicked awesome stuff like change the seasons, bring rain, make the earth fertile, cause earthquakes and eclipses, doom entire unfaithful regions to horrible death with drought or plagues. Gods made the lands they liked flow with milk and honey. Gods made their chosen people win wars by drowning the enemy soldiers in the sea, or by pelting the enemy with lightning or balls of celestial fire.

As science became the go-to kid for figuring out the world and solving problems, god(s) became more remote and abstract. Nowadays, nobody knows what god's nether parts look like, or even if he has any. People get away with apostasy, atheism, homosexuality, eating pork and shellfish, blasphemy, apathy-- and the gods could care less.  God only communicates indirectly, only acts through human beings and only tells people what they already know. God does very little in terms of miracles these days.  God shows up on toast, causes babies to be born with too many arms in India, and makes statues weep. God can't even grow back amputated limbs-- he is too busy being invisible, immaterial, outside of space and time. God is old, tired, unreliable and rather ineffectual. And there is only one of him left. He must be getting lonely.

Science has even debunked the rainbow.

Makes ya feel kinda sorry for ol' god.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1410
  • Darwins +101/-26
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #341 on: August 08, 2014, 09:16:42 AM »
So did the Theists Summarize why being a rump rider is a problem for god? 



Offline frank callaway

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +15/-41
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #342 on: August 08, 2014, 09:32:59 AM »
And science was born. Religion has been on the ropes, fighting back tooth and nail ever since.

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

it's not always so black and white.  from the birth of science to the many superior technical advances that western civilization has made, people of faith have been involved.  many historians agree that the impact christianity had on the development of modern science was positive.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1410
  • Darwins +101/-26
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #343 on: August 08, 2014, 10:30:00 AM »
And science was born. Religion has been on the ropes, fighting back tooth and nail ever since.

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

it's not always so black and white.  from the birth of science to the many superior technical advances that western civilization has made, people of faith have been involved.  many historians agree that the impact christianity had on the development of modern science was positive.


I have heard many atheists claim that belief in god limits ones ability to think and advance science.  Including statments indicating you can not be a good creationist molecular biologist.

I disagree and history does back this up.   Religion in and of itself does not limit ones ability to reason through physical existing material sciences.  I do not need to believe that a fish became a man over the last 3 billion years to see how genes affect living things. 

I do believe that we would be further along were it not for the dark ages where people were killed for posing new ideas.  But today I see little reason an astronomer could not do good work even if they were creationists.  Much innovation, and science has been performed by christians of all flavors.

I would not go as far as to say that religiousness is an advantage, but I do not find it to be a terrible hinderance either.  You can have a molecular biologist make new medications even if he does not believe that amphibians evolved into humans he need only accept that there are similar DNA characteristics between species.  The reason for these similarities is achademic and of little practical nature today.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #344 on: August 08, 2014, 10:39:56 AM »
many historians agree that the impact christianity had on the development of modern science was positive.

Compared to what? Doesn't any firm stance on this topic on either side have to be at least somewhat subjective, because we have no way to measure the development of science without the impact of christianity to make a comparison?

It's easy to find lots of examples of christianity (or maybe more accurately, the Vatican) disrupting progress, but I'm sure that at least some comparable examples can be found to show progress that happened with the help of christianity as well. With all the hospitals run by organizations, there've got to be at least a few instances of positive discoveries. "Religulous" has a scene with Bill talking to a Vatican astronomer that was somewhat startling as well - I'm inclined to think that they have added to the pool of astronomical information in some way.

I'm really just pondering if there's any way to really draw a qualitative conclusion about this...

EDIT: for clarity sake, I definitely land on the "religion has absolutely hindered scientific progress" side of the argument.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 10:53:05 AM by Jag »
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1081/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #345 on: August 08, 2014, 10:48:04 AM »
I would not go as far as to say that religiousness is an advantage, but I do not find it to be a terrible hinderance either.  You can have a molecular biologist make new medications even if he does not believe that amphibians evolved into humans he need only accept that there are similar DNA characteristics between species.

I imagine that researchers that have been denied funding for stem cell research would disagree with you.

The hindrance is not so much that scientist A is allowing his/her beliefs to interfere with the scientific process, but the sources of funding and resources - e.g. governments, communities, for-profit organizations, etc. - allowing their religious beliefs (or the religious beliefs of their constituency) to dictate how and where such funding goes.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #346 on: August 08, 2014, 10:56:44 AM »
it's not always so black and white.  from the birth of science to the many superior technical advances that western civilization has made, people of faith have been involved.

I'm so tired of this arugment from the religious.  xianity is inherently at odds with science.  They claim to come by knowledge in completely different ways.  Religion in general has always been and always will be resistant to new ideas because it is a conservative mechanism for culture. 

from the top link in your wiki list:
Quote
Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

This is the fundamental difference and cannot be reconciled.  When xian scientists have made discoveries, it was not through revelation, faith or sacredness.  It was through reason, empiricism and evidence.

There is no directive or tradition within xianity that promotes knowledge.  It does not describe the scientific method.  It does not promote methods of rationality.  Instead, there is a tremendous emphasis on faith and believing withouth evidence.  That is a metanarrative of the NT.[1] 

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Heb 11:1

"I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. "
Matt 17:20

Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.
Matt 21:21

a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
Titus 1:2

so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power
1 Cor 2:5

We live by faith, not by sight.
2 Cor 5:7

"Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”
John 20:29

And last, people of faith are not the same as their religion.  As soon as anyone points out what I said above, the religious instantly say "oh yeah, well here are a bunch of scientists who made awesome discoveries and they were christians. So there."  It is a stupid argument and either fails to understand the point being made or it dishonestly attmepts to side-step it. 

Yes, some religious individuals are capable of compartmentalizing their beliefs so that their dumb religious beliefs do not get in the way of science.  That is not the point.  The point is many religions (abrahamic ones specifically) tend to impede progress in general knowledge (science) because they have a difficult time squaring new ideas with the old ones they had.  xianity had a hard time with the lightning rod, for chrissakes.  And large portions of xians still struggle with evolution and cosmology because of their religion.

many historians agree that the impact christianity had on the development of modern science was positive.

evidence?  How many is "many"?  What proportion would that be as compared to the ones who think it was negative?

 1. term used correctly
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1410
  • Darwins +101/-26
Re: Why Exactly Does Biblegod Hate Homosexuals?
« Reply #347 on: August 08, 2014, 11:51:09 AM »
I would not go as far as to say that religiousness is an advantage, but I do not find it to be a terrible hinderance either.  You can have a molecular biologist make new medications even if he does not believe that amphibians evolved into humans he need only accept that there are similar DNA characteristics between species.

I imagine that researchers that have been denied funding for stem cell research would disagree with you.

The hindrance is not so much that scientist A is allowing his/her beliefs to interfere with the scientific process, but the sources of funding and resources - e.g. governments, communities, for-profit organizations, etc. - allowing their religious beliefs (or the religious beliefs of their constituency) to dictate how and where such funding goes.

True there are some problems but by and large I do not see it as a huge problem.  Stem cell research might be one of the few exceptions today.  But regarding that I even know atheists who oppose growing fetuses and then doing experimentation with their remnants.

I personally would support it all day long.  Sounds great to me.  hell take that huge resource that is incinerated now and put it to good use.  Take all the aborted babies and start using them for research purposes instead of putting them in landfills and furnaces.