Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
General Religious Discussion / Re: Arguments from Reason - Aquinas
« Last post by jdawg70 on Yesterday at 10:50:30 AM »
You are missing the big picture. You are seeing the world through science and nothing but science. This is detrimental.
Detrimental to what, exactly?

God does not need matter, energy, nor time. God is pure spirit. Spirit is outside of time, mater, and energy.
Well he needed matter, energy, and time for some reason.  Why else did he make it?

When you look at the world without any filter of any kind, how do you distinguish your imagination from reality?  Remember, Flobort doesn't need matter, energy, nor time either.  Flobort is pure maglafarb.  Maglafarb is outside of time, matter, and energy.

Bullshit is also outside of time, matter, and energy.
Science / Re: On the Moon Landing
« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 10:50:21 AM »
Especially with that stupid woman's voice. Notice that the picture of the earth isn't anything like you would see from low orbit?

When you are in low orbit, the earth travels under you v. fast, and has different cloud patterns.

Looks like retards will have to go back to the retard board.

Is the Earth really whizzing through space at 67,000 MPH? It looks much slower in that video.
Science / Re: On the Moon Landing
« Last post by Add Homonym on Yesterday at 10:48:02 AM »
Especially with that stupid woman's voice. Notice that the picture of the earth isn't anything like you would see from low orbit?

When you are in low orbit, the earth travels under you v. fast, and has different cloud patterns.

Looks like retards will have to go back to the retard board.
If it is a delusion, so be it.

OldChurchGuy, could you explain how this is different from this sentiment:
I do not care what the consequences of my actions are to people who are not OldChurchGuy.

I'm quite certain you would vehemently disagree with that sentiment, but you see where I'm going with all of this, right?
Chatter / Re: EU Referendum
« Last post by Add Homonym on Yesterday at 10:11:33 AM »
Here's another one of Brad and Jen's videos.

Chatter / Re: EU Referendum
« Last post by Add Homonym on Yesterday at 09:56:39 AM »
What if, when Cameron suggested a referendum, he thought that people would vote for remain, so never seriously considered what the divorce would cost, so he in fact offered something that was nearly impossible for modern idiots to implement.

Shall we all commit suicide?  Yeaaahh. I voted yes for a joke. Whoops. #SuicideRegret.
^^ I agree that some local historical items could be in the Bible and exaggerated.    A localized flood out of the Black Sea, for example, may have seemed like a world wide flood to people who never traveled more than 25 miles from where they were born.

I believe King David was an historical figure.

I don't think the entire Bible is false or anything like that.    Let me re-phrase...

What miracles claimed in the Bible are true?    Did Jesus multiply food?   Did all kinds of tombs break open and all kinds of dead prophets come back to life?    Was it just Jesus's resurrection that was true?

Consider for a second, the idea of actually turning water into wine.   Wine has molecules in it that simply aren't in pure water (carbon for example).   You'd need nuclear fusion to transform water into wine...  or Harry Potter type magic...   or you could do it with a stage magic trick, like a false vessel, or by dropping food dye into white wine.

So which miracles really happened?
I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but since it relates to the topic, I figured I'd say it here rather than starting a new one:

Regarding people who are gay, you should actually get to know them before you consider them "evil" or "sinful".  Why do I say this (aside from the traditional "Don't judge people before you get to know them" comment)?  Because I actually have met and talked to 3 people IRL who happen to be gay (well, two I'm sure are gay because they brought it up, one I'm pretty sure), and two of them are good friends of mine (one is a lesbian who has two moms).  And even though I was a bit surprised that they were gay, I don't hate or dislike them for it, and they seemed pretty happy.

Given that, and that animals have also been observed practicing homosexuality, I don't think you can really choose to be gay/bi anymore than I could force myself to be lesbian/bi.

Even so, a reason that homosexuality is rather rare in populations (along with having children primarily through adoption or artificial means rather than procreation), but it seems that homosexual relations have more health risks than heterosexual relationships:

Granted I think the mental problems like depression and suicide attempts may be in part or largely due to the conflicting views of/toward gays/lesbians/bis in society, but in could tie in to homosexual acts in general, and there are the physical mentions as well.  And yes, I am aware that STDs and the like happen amount heterosexual couples as well, but it appears to be a good deal more prominent among those who are homosexual. So I can understand why it's quite uncommon in nature yet it still occurs, especially given recent research[1] that having gay men in the gene pool makes the female relatives more fertile (not sure if it works the other way around, but yeah.
Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion / Re: Orlando Shooting
« Last post by jaimehlers on Yesterday at 09:44:00 AM »
You are grossly oversimplifying experimental design reducing it to the most uninteresting, idealized and trivial cases.
I don't care if you think I'm oversimplifying, or even if you say it, because unless you can show that you're correct, there's no reason to take comments such as this seriously.  In point of fact, that is how experimental science actually works - the whole point of the scientific method is to simplify things as much as possible so that you're only testing one thing at once in any given experiment.  That's what isolating the variable means, eh - you're isolating the thing you want to test and seeing how everything else reacts to changes in it.

Quote from: eh!
How the actual fuck do you think an experimenter can isolate a variable on say the atmosphere, the universe or an ecosystem.... they can't and they don't, that's how.
I sure am glad that scientists don't have this attitude you're displaying of "can't do it, so it doesn't get done".  What an experimenter does when faced with a tough problem like that is model it - whether it's creating an actual model or using a computer to do it instead.  If you have a good enough model, you certainly can isolate the variable you want to look for.  That's why science has gotten so far so fast, you know.  The sort of empirical observations you're romanticizing are good enough to get a passing grade, most of the time...but sometimes a passing grade just isn't good enough.

Quote from: eh!
Hunters, farmers, indigenous people bet their lives/livelihood constructing models based on empirical observation.....scientists do exactly the same thing on large complex dynamic systems.
Sure, they bet their lives, and often forfeit them due to the fact that the human brain is simply not very good at such things[1].  The survivors then rinse and repeat.  We are very fortunate as a species that we reproduce fast enough to replace our losses, because those models they use are basically patchwork and guesses, held together with spit, baling wire, and duct tape.  As I said before, this is usually enough to get a passing grade, but the real test comes when reality takes a sudden left turn and the model isn't ready for it.

That's where science comes in.  Science isn't held back by the limitations of the human brain the same way as the empirical observations you romanticized, because those are generally limited to a single person or a relatively small group at best, whereas science is designed to be spread as widely as possible so it can use tools which simply aren't available to a single person.
 1. neurons run at less than 100 Hz; the reason the brain works so well despite this limitation is due to their networking capability, but even so, brains rely heavily on caches and lookups to actually get anything done
Another simple question for Old Church Guy or CD...

If you don't believe that atheists go to hell, that's obviously a little different than what most of the Bible indicates... how much of the Bible do you believe is true, and how much do you believe is sort of... a distorted ancient morality tale?

Which parts are true?

Good question.  I admit that I haven't read the entire Bible yet (I really gotta get back to doing that on my Bible Blog thread), so I'll answer for now based on what I do know, and I'll be able to eventually give a completely informed answer. :)

But for the time being... I believe that a good portion of the Old Teatament is "a distorted ancient morality tale".  To borrow a phrase from a friend, "it was written by men trying to understand the divine".  Seeing as it's from the perspective of the Israelites, it makes sense that they would try to put their own views of what they saw as good (slavery, polygamy, genocide of cities then capturing virgins, etc.) and say that it was what God or Moses commanded (or they believed it was what God commanded).  If The Tower of Babel thing were true, for instance, I'm not sure how tall that was supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't as tall as, say, the Sears Tower, or the Empire State Building, and those are still there.  And (though it's in the NT) Revelation seems less like a far-off prophecy (or close one, for that matter, since it mentions sending the message to the 12 Tribes of Israel and saying Jesus was coming soon) and more like a bad LSD trip.

Noah's flood, well, a lot of other cultures have had flood stories set around the same time, so while there may be some truth to it, but then it's obviously clear that not everyone else aside from Noah died if plenty of other civilizations had a "flood story with survivors"—Gilgamesh being an example.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]