Support NeoGAF

[Pixel Pete]

To New Atheists: The morality objection is an interesting one, since we still live in a civilization that was put together by Christians, and infused with Christian morality. Even though Christianity has faded significantly from the forefront of popular society, pretending that were all 'moral agents' with no debt to the belief system of our ancestors is awfully shortsighted. Not to mention just simply wrong.

I for one am not trying to abolish that connection to our ancestors.

What I am saying is that even Christian morality isn't from god. It's from humans, it's from culture and it's from society.

I honestly have a hard to time understanding how that isn't abundantly obvious.

 

[Noirulus]

I love how religious folk always tend to go to the ONE GIANT question we have, the main and only "theory" - the Big Bang.

"TELL ME HOW THAT HAPPENED OR SCIENCE IS WRONG!"

Come on! The shear amount of findings, discoveries, cures, technology ect. ect. science has brought is insane. Opposed to one Book w/ one answer since the "beginning of time".

This is so damn annoying. Especially when the big bang is one of the most well established theories. We have found major facts supporting it, including the cosmic microwave background which is the energy left over from the big bang

It's a bit sad, really.

 

[Orayn]

I believe in God - Catholic here - and I completely understand the atheistic/agnostic position, and have respect for it. Now I don't, and have never, perceived a conflict between Science and my faith. I do however see conflicts in between belief systems that want to define Science a certain way that it becomes basically exclusive to their camp.

Thank you. Willingness to compartmentalize these things instead of flat-out ignoring reality is the difference between what I see as a reasonable religious person, and a clown like GTP_Daverytimes.

To New Atheists: The morality objection is an interesting one, since we still live in a civilization that was put together by Christians, and infused with Christian morality. Even though Christianity has faded significantly from the forefront of popular society, pretending that were all 'moral agents' with no debt to the belief system of our ancestors is awfully shortsighted. Not to mention just simply wrong.

My counter-argument is that many aspects of morality, worldwide, are simply reflections of tendencies that humans naturally have. Sometimes we're able to emphasize the positive, community-building aspects, and other times belief systems will throw fuel on the fire of our prejudices. There's a SUPER-relevant St. Francis quote for this, pertaining to nonbelievers knowing wrong from right, but I can't recall it, unfortunately...

 

[Subtervotion]

So why do you take something we don't know as truth? i feel like we are going round and round. You deny that the bible is relevant because "It's a mix of mythology, poetry, history, and good old-fashioned storytelling" yet you agree what Scientist say even though the provide no solid evidence to prove it. And how did you come to the conclusion that the Bible is mythology? how would you prove that the stories in the bible are fairy-tales? aren't you making the same mistakes that you accuse me of making?. Someone in here said that the main excuse that atheist will use in an argument is that the bible is fairy-tales and he seems to be right so far. You have no evidence to prove otherwise, i don't have the evidence to prove science wrong but they themselves acknowledge that they are limited in their knowledge and you also have come to that same conclusion.

The book of Genesis is incredibly easy to poke holes in. Fossil record, geology, DNA, etc. Do you want me to go into more detail?

 

[Korey]

New page'd:

I believe in God - Catholic here - and I completely understand the atheistic/agnostic position, and have respect for it. Now I don't, and have never, perceived a conflict between Science and my faith. I do however see conflicts in between belief systems that want to define Science a certain way that it becomes basically exclusive to their camp.

Explain Adam and Eve and how that fits into evolution.

Why did Noah make a random detour to Australia to drop off all of the marsupials? All the polar bears in the arctic and all the penguins in Antarctica?

 

[CornBurrito]

And what is the rationality behind one side hijacking 'science' over the other?
Can you - for example- be an atheist without adhering to the main scientific schools of thought?

Yes you can.

All that is required to be an atheist is a lack in belief in god. You can totally reject all science (and adhere to solipsism) and be an atheist.

 

[Samk]

You just succinctly described what terrifies me most about religion.

We can be good people without the threat of eternal damnation watching over our every act. At the very basic level, the golden rule is what enabled us to form societies and progress as human beings, and the golden rule has been around longer than any religion.

I don't know if this has been pointed out before in this thread, but the Bible isn't a great source of moral teachings. The old testament being of particularly awful moral teachings. For instance Deuteronomy 22:13-21-if your wife is not virgin the men of her city shall stone her to death. There was also God conducting genocide to those who dare to to believe in something other than him, and of course allowing slavery, so long as you don't beat their teeth out. Lovely.

Jesus doesn't even really refute any of the particularly bad stuff either. I've been reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, and in addition to providing a wonderful insight into the creation of the Christian faith, it showed the many errors and additions of the Bible as we know it today. For instance the story about Jesus telling those about to stone an adulterous girl to "Let He who is without sin to cast the first stone" wasn't even in the original manuscript ( I read about it in the book, but you can find references here). There are numerous other cases of, even in the New Testament, where the Bible is just morally wrong.

 

[NullPointer]

Examples?

Specifically in the debates between science and religion - there is abject hostility on both sides. I'd refer you to any Dawkins or Hitchens talks on religion or intelligent design, and to some of the guests that face them in many debates.

The religious accuse the scientists of replacing God with randomness, reducing life to meaninglessness and immorality, espousing a relativist moral position and "worship" of "Darwinism" that could lead to another Hitler. The representatives for Science just refer to anybody who believes in God as ignorant, dangerous and murderous fools seeking to end any actually inquiry into the nature of our world.

But then hey, maybe I just haven't seen enough of the nicer debates.

That and of the science programs I watch (Netflix Nova specials, PBS documentaries and History channel crap) don't leave a lot of space for the unknown or the questioning of their theories. Theories are presented as definitive fact.

 

[Sharp]

So why do you take something we don't know as truth? i feel like we are going round and round. You deny that the bible is relevant because "It's a mix of mythology, poetry, history, and good old-fashioned storytelling" yet you agree what Scientist say even though the provide no solid evidence to prove it.

Dawg... science is all about providing the evidence. Literally, you can look up the evidence at any time. It's all taken down. One of the most important things about any scientific study is that it gives detailed instructions on how you can replicate it yourself. There is literally no reason for you to take what they say at face value if you don't want to. Go out and do science! Surprise us!

And how did you come to the conclusion that the Bible is mythology? how would you prove that the stories in the bible are fairy-tales? aren't you making the same mistakes that you accuse me of making?. Someone in here said that the main excuse that atheist will use in an argument is that the bible is fairy-tales and he seems to be right so far. You have no evidence to prove otherwise, i don't have the evidence to prove science wrong but they themselves acknowledge that they are limited in their knowledge and you also have come to that same conclusion.

The Bible includes many descriptions of events that (1) totally defy what we know about the known universe, and (2) demonstrably didn't happen. Now, you can always argue that God just made it look like it didn't happen but that's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and not in the realm of scientific discourse. What it seems like to me is that you are either (a) trolling or (b) don't accept the notion of cause and effect. If the latter is indeed the case, the world must be a very confusing place to you.

I thought atheist's dont beilive in Jesus. See how easy it is to say God or Jesus. Most people thank God without even knowing it and the next minute they will proclaim that they are atheists.

What are you going on about here? I'm Jewish and pretty much never think about either Jesus or God... sometimes I thank based god though.

 

[Stellares]

So why do you take something we don't know as truth? i feel like we are going round and round. You deny that the bible is relevant because "It's a mix of mythology, poetry, history, and good old-fashioned storytelling" yet you agree what Scientist say even though the provide no solid evidence to prove it. And how did you come to the conclusion that the Bible is mythology? how would you prove that the stories in the bible are fairy-tales? aren't you making the same mistakes that you accuse me of making?. Someone in here said that the main excuse that atheist will use in an argument is that the bible is fairy-tales and he seems to be right so far. You have no evidence to prove otherwise, i don't have the evidence to prove science wrong but they themselves acknowledge that they are limited in their knowledge and you also have come to that same conclusion.





I thought atheist's dont beilive in Jesus. See how easy it is to say God or Jesus. Most people thank God without even knowing it and the next minute they will proclaim that they are atheists.

Its the claim that the bible is based in truth that needs to be proved, not the other way around. Science stays within the limits of its knowledge, it does not create theories on things we cannot understand with our current tools. The reason we have limited knowledge is due to the sheer vastness of the universe and the complicated processes behind it. Just because science does not have a vast knowledge of how everything works does not discredit science. That's the point you need to understand.
--
Wow, so I guess I can't use those terms that are common in english to express grief/frustration or it means I believe in god!

 

[CriginsMcJuggs]

I thought atheist's dont beilive in Jesus. See how easy it is to say God or Jesus. Most people thank God without even knowing it and the next minute they will proclaim that they are atheists.

Woah you convinced me. Atheists use common idioms so they must secretly believe in god. Jesus, thank god my logic isnt this bad.

 

[Juicy Bob]

I see where you are coming from. But I submit to you that your anecdotes are the exceptions and not the norm. From my perspective, perhaps because of societal and cultural effects, most atheist are not militant like the ones that posted on your friends FB page.

The internet does provide anonymity though and is a breeding ground for assholes who love to espouse their opinions, sometimes unsolicited. But, that is true about every subject, not just atheism.

To be honest, I agree. I think the 'silent majority' of people who are non-believers are like us - we respect the beliefs of others even if we may not subscribe to the same ideas. But you're right, most people do seem a lot more tolerant in everyday society compared to what you find online.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

To New Atheists: The morality objection is an interesting one, since we still live in a civilization that was put together by Christians, and infused with Christian morality. Even though Christianity has faded significantly from the forefront of popular society, pretending that were all 'moral agents' with no debt to the belief system of our ancestors is awfully shortsighted. Not to mention just simply wrong.
.

Just a couple of things, the precepts of 'Thou shalt not murder/steal/commit adultery/bear false witness', the only ones from the '10 commandments' that I would deem as moral statements, predate Christianity. These 'morals' are conducive to any society that wishes to survive.

 

[LightofRohan]

I thought atheist's dont beilive in Jesus. See how easy it is to say God or Jesus. Most people thank God without even knowing it and the next minute they will proclaim that they are atheists.

Usually when I or most people use "Jesus" as a sort of curse word - it's usually in reference to something unbelievable, insane or ridiculous. So I think we are using it correctly!

Hey guys. I don't believe in any sort of God. If you do, that's cool. Sweet. Laters.

WAIT! Come back! What about the Big Bang?!!

 

[wolfmat]

Hey guys. I don't believe in any sort of God. If you do, that's cool. Sweet. Laters.

 

[Subtervotion]

Specifically in the debates between science and religion - there is abject hostility on both sides. I'd refer you to any Dawkins or Hitchens talks on religion or intelligent design, and to some of the guests that face them in many debates.

The religious accuse the scientists of replacing God with randomness, reducing life to meaninglessness and immorality, espousing a relativist moral position and "worship" of "Darwinism" that could lead to another Hitler. The representatives for Science just refer to anybody who believes in God as ignorant, dangerous and murderous fools seeking to end any actually inquiry into the nature of our world.

But then hey, maybe I just haven't seen enough of the nicer debates.

That and of the science programs I watch (Netflix Nova specials, PBS documentaries and History channel crap) don't leave a lot of space for the unknown or the questioning of their theories. Theories are presented as definitive fact.

I never said atheists were humble. You're thinking in terms of humans beings that support their stance. I'm thinking about the actual practices. Take out humans from the equation of both science and religion and you get 'I know, because I know.' and 'This is what we know so far.'

 

[Atramental]

Woah you convinced me. Atheists use common idioms so they must secretly believe in god. Jesus, thank god my logic isnt this bad.

Goddammit! Foiled again!

 

[CornBurrito]

I thought atheist's dont beilive in Jesus. See how easy it is to say God or Jesus. Most people thank God without even knowing it and the next minute they will proclaim that they are atheists.

I don't. It is called being ironic.

Also, "thank god" and "jesus" are common expression in the English language. Just being brought up in an English speaking environment will have you saying those things even if you do not believe in god/jesus.

I hope you've never said "this tastes like crap/shit." By your logic that would mean you've actually tasted fecal matter before.

 

[Dr. Malik]

Proper term is Gawd and Geezus

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Its the claim that the bible is based in truth that needs to be proved, not the other way around. Science stays within the limits of its knowledge, it does not create theories on things we cannot understand with our current tools. The reason we have limited knowledge is due to the sheer vastness of the universe and the complicated processes behind it. Just because science does not have a vast knowledge of how everything works does not discredit science. That's the point you need to understand.
--
Wow, so I guess I can't use those terms that are common in english to express grief/frustration or it means I believe in god!

Then explain the Big Bang (and it's affiliates), Many atheist will tell that because "God has not shown himself to us humans there is no reason to believe in him". If we didn't witness the Big Bang how do we come to the conclusion that it happened? another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way?

Woah you convinced me. Atheists use common idioms so they must secretly believe in god. Jesus, thank god my logic isnt this bad.

Am a christian and i believe in God, do you see me saying "Thank Buddha?" the same can be said about you, you say you don't believe in anything but on more than one occasion am willing to bet that you have said "Thank God" and if you try to downplay it as a common thing to say then you will be playing back to the point i made earlier in the thread that "It's a built in tendency for us to believe in something, there is nothing like believing in nothing".

 

[TaeOH]

Its hard to take you seriously when you seriously suggest I'd be ok with genocide. Killing is never justified, even if its for the "greater good". If over population occurs, we will search for space elsewhere in the universe.

How can killing never be justified in a world without God? We kill things every day. We live off the death of other life.

 

[NullPointer]

I never said atheists were humble. You're thinking in terms of humans beings that support their stance. I'm thinking about the actual practices. Take out humans from the equation of both science and religion and you get 'I know, because I know.' and 'This is what we know so far.'

I understand you on the first part but I don't agree with the second, or at least I don't think its applicable in many cases.

Religions and religious teachings are not static, even if they all seek to stay in conformance with their holy books (and a ton of oral tradition). New interpretations and methods are always springing up in light of new discoveries or world changes. Its not "I know, because I know", its "I believe because I have been brought up, or have sought out ancient knowledge that resonates with my personal experience".

Its when we start discussing "facts on the ground" that things turn pretty nasty. Whether this verse here is literal or metaphorical. Whether its true history or just a method of some particular realization of the human condition.

Basically to me, religion and spirituality have a place and a reason for being, and even their own internal logic (sometimes inconsistent with purpose), which operates on a different level than something like the scientific method. But popular religion, like popular science doesn't delve into the deeper discussions at the fringe of each discipline where the real work and change takes place.

Edit: Actually I take that last line back. Science is far more transparent with the discussions that happen at the fringe. The raw stuff that leads to new theories and calls into question previous assumptions.

 

[CornBurrito]

Then explain the Big Bang (and it's affiliates), Many atheist will tell that because "God has not shown himself to us humans there is no reason to believe in him". If we didn't witness the Big Bang how do we come to the conclusion that it happened? another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way?

If only there were a way to easily access all the evidence supporting the theory... oh wait

Seriously, do some damn research.

 

[CriginsMcJuggs]

Then explain the Big Bang (and it's affiliates), Many atheist will tell that because "God has not shown himself to us humans there is no reason to believe in him". If we didn't witness the Big Bang how do we come to the conclusion that it happened? another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way?

How many times does it need to be said.

WE HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THE BIG BANG

there I bolded it and everything the whole nine yards

 

[Atrus]

That and of the science programs I watch (Netflix Nova specials, PBS documentaries and History channel crap) don't leave a lot of space for the unknown or the questioning of their theories. Theories are presented as definitive fact.

Many theories are explanations of underlying facts. Things evolve, the theory is based on how they evolve not if. Gravity exists, the theory is based on the scope of it's existence and interactions. Germs can cause disease, the theory reflects how germs cause disease.

It is typically the more esoteric theories that usually try the more subversive route of hinting at possibilities. This is what happens with History channels 'Aliens helped the ancient civilizations' shows or other nonsense.

It is not the place of any educator to waste precious time attending to any superfluous nonsense. It's a balance between limited resources and unlimited stupidity.

 

[NullPointer]

How can killing never be justified in a world without God? We kill things every day. We live off the death of other life.

And God found the smell of the burned meat pleasing.

It's a balance between limited resources and unlimited stupidity.

Well yeah, that's the rub ;P

 

[Sharp]

Then explain the Big Bang (and it's affiliates), Many atheist will tell that because "God has not shown himself to us humans there is no reason to believe in him". If we didn't witness the Big Bang how do we come to the conclusion that it happened? another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way?

Dude. This shit is what science is for. Explaining these things. These are not the mysterious unanswered questions you have set them up to be. Go look stuff up. Explore! Expand your mind! You might be surprised at how much those nerdy ol' scientists have figured out!

 

[Orayn]

So why do you take something we don't know as truth?

Not knowing something to be super-mega-ultra-positively-super-true doesn't mean it isn't useful. Our understanding of gravity is incomplete, but we were still able to use it to send space probes on long, precise trajectories. We haven't sequences the genome of absolutely every mold in existence, but we still have a pretty good idea of how and why penicillin works.

i feel like we are going round and round.

I'll say!

You deny that the bible is relevant because "It's a mix of mythology, poetry, history, and good old-fashioned storytelling" yet you agree what Scientist say even though the provide no solid evidence to prove it.

Again, I'm going to need specifics. I don't agree with anything that isn't supported by evidence.

And how did you come to the conclusion that the Bible is mythology? how would you prove that the stories in the bible are fairy-tales? aren't you making the same mistakes that you accuse me of making?

Again, burden of proof. I described it the way I did because it's similar to other books that are, by and large, considered to be mixes of history, allegory, and fiction, like the Iliad, Bhagavad-Gita, and Prose Edda. I'm drawing a fairly reasonable conclusion based on what we know of the Bible's authorship and what we have to compare the it to.

Someone in here said that the main excuse that atheist will use in an argument is that the bible is fairy-tales and he seems to be right so far. You have no evidence to prove otherwise, i don't have the evidence to prove science wrong but they themselves acknowledge that they are limited in their knowledge and you also have come to that same conclusion.

I'm glad we finally agree on something - Science is incomplete. The problem is that you draw the conclusion that it's meaningless, while I see all the things science has lead us to and think the exact opposite.

I thought atheist's dont beilive in Jesus. See how easy it is to say God or Jesus. Most people thank God without even knowing it and the next minute they will proclaim that they are atheists.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of "profanity?"

 

[Subtervotion]

Then explain the Big Bang (and it's affiliates), Many atheist will tell that because "God has not shown himself to us humans there is no reason to believe in him". If we didn't witness the Big Bang how do we come to the conclusion that it happened? another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way?

You really don't know anything about the big bang do you? Hubble telescope????

Seriously dude, do some research. You could start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Also, nullpointer, agree to disagree? You have some good points and I respect that.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

Oh hell no.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Many atheist will tell that because "God has not shown himself to us humans there is no reason to believe in him".

seriously? 'shown' in this context, refers to evidence, not literally gazing into the clouds and seeing a anthropomorphised deity

Science is incomplete.

and its funny because its often stated as a weakness of science, when it is, in fact the opposite.
The only way science can work going forward is if it's incomplete. It's its biggest strength.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Woah you convinced me. Atheists use common idioms so they must secretly believe in god. Jesus, thank god my logic isnt this bad.

Am a christian and i believe in God, do you see me saying "Thank Buddha?" the same can be said about you, you say you don't believe in anything but on more than one occasion am willing to bet that you have said "Thank God" and if you try to downplay it as a common thing to say then you will be playing back to the point i made earlier in the thread that "It's a built in tendency for us to believe in something, there is nothing like believing in nothing".

If only there were a way to easily access all the evidence supporting the theory... oh wait

Seriously, do some damn research.

It's your belief, you tell me. Am not the one that believes in the Big Bang, if you say that there is evidence then provide the dam evidence. At this point is you that's being lazy not me.

seriously? 'shown' in this context, refers to evidence, not literally gazing into the clouds and seeing a anthropomorphised deity

I guess you haven't been reading the thread at all.

 

[Kapura]

Then explain the Big Bang (and it's affiliates), Many atheist will tell that because "God has not shown himself to us humans there is no reason to believe in him". If we didn't witness the Big Bang how do we come to the conclusion that it happened? another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way?

Don't pull the "many atheists say" card. Respond to arguments being presented here and now, not arguments you've seen/heard/believe others will make.

Here is kind of an interesting discussion I saw on facebook: very long image. I kind of don't think a debate of this type can be settled by reasoned argument; the best anybody can hope to do is fully understand their own position and try to understand others'.

 

[Atramental]

How many times does it need to be said.

WE HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THE BIG BANG

there I bolded it and everything the whole nine yards

GTP_Daverytimes. Go. Here. Now.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

[Noirulus]

Then explain the Big Bang (and it's affiliates), Many atheist will tell that because "God has not shown himself to us humans there is no reason to believe in him". If we didn't witness the Big Bang how do we come to the conclusion that it happened? another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way?




Am a christian and i believe in God, do you see me saying "Thank Buddha?" the same can be said about you, you say you don't believe in anything but on more than one occasion am willing to bet that you have said "Thank God" and if you try to downplay it as a common thing to say then you will be playing back to the point i made earlier in the thread that "It's a built in tendency for us to believe in something, there is nothing like believing in nothing".

We can see the big bang, it's called the Cosmic Microwave Background. It's the energy remnant from the big bang which has travelled for so long that it has red-shifted into the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It's temperature is 2.7K

I'm enjoying that you hand pick specific posts that you could manipulate somehow to fall into your argument.

 

[NullPointer]

Also, nullpointer, agree to disagree? You have some good points and I respect that.

I edited a bit if that's the part you find disagreeable. Also, if its the religion is not static part, I'd recommend reading "A History of God". Its about events and trends leading to the birth and development of the world's monotheistic religions, and how dramatically they have changed over time.

but yeah, I'm always good with agreeing to disagree. I'll never stop learning, so I'll never stop being wrong as well ;P

 

[Subtervotion]

Am a christian and i believe in God, do you see me saying "Thank Buddha?" the same can be said about you, you say you don't believe in anything but on more than one occasion am willing to bet that you have said "Thank God" and if you try to downplay it as a common thing to say then you will be playing back to the point i made earlier in the thread that "It's a built in tendency for us to believe in something, there is nothing like believing in nothing".




It's your belief, you tell me. Am not the one that believes in the Big Bang, if you say that there is evidence then provide the dam evidence. At this point is you that's being lazy not me.

There are multiple links on this page. Click. Read. Learn.

^^^Edit: nullpointer, I've wanted to read a lot of books recently and that one is on the list.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. How do we know that our equations are the rightful equation for measuring outer space. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way

Jut had to re-post it since many people were ignoring it.

 

[CornBurrito]

Am a christian and i believe in God, do you see me saying "Thank Buddha?" the same can be said about you, you say you don't believe in anything but on more than one occasion am willing to bet that you have said "Thank God" and if you try to downplay it as a common thing to say then you will be playing back to the point i made earlier in the thread that "It's a built in tendency for us to believe in something, there is nothing like believing in nothing".




It's your belief, you tell me. Am not the one that believes in the Big Bang, if you say that there is evidence then provide the dam evidence. At this point is you that's being lazy not me

Thank Buddah isn't a common expression in English speaking countries.


And people have given you links, so no it isn't me being lazy if you can't even click ONE of them and read.

 

[CriginsMcJuggs]

Am a christian and i believe in God, do you see me saying "Thank Buddha?" the same can be said about you, you say you don't believe in anything but on more than one occasion am willing to bet that you have said "Thank God" and if you try to downplay it as a common thing to say then you will be playing back to the point i made earlier in the thread that "It's a built in tendency for us to believe in something, there is nothing like believing in nothing".

Cause no one in this country fucking says "Thank Buddha". I (we) grew up in a culture that says "Jesus" or "thank god" when they are appropriate. Im sure the firsst person who used them in that capacity believed in god, but now its part of the english language.

Since you seemed to ignore it, have you ever heard someone say the phrase "This tastes like shit"?...Do you really think they have tasted shit?

 

[Kapura]

another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way

Jut had to re-post it since many people were ignoring it.

That's fucking stupid. Those are two entirely different things. You might as well ask why a plane would behave differently under water than in the air.

 

[Noirulus]

another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way

Jut had to re-post it since many people were ignoring it.

Yes and no. Some of our math works on earth, but when we measure in outer space (when I say outer space, I mean in the scales of galaxies. We can use basic physics to describe stuff even within our solar system), things can get inaccurate because of the incredible scales. That is why we use more complex math like general relativity and quantum physics for large scales (and this complex math works here on earth too)


So in conclusion, yes the math we use works perfectly on earth and in outer space.

 

[Sharp]

another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. How do we know that our equations are the rightful equation for measuring outer space. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way

Jut had to re-post it since many people were ignoring it.

I didn't ignore it. I explained to you that the reasons scientists use the same equations throughout (or rather, have equations that work throughout, though they often use different sets of equations in practice) is that they have worked very hard to find equations that worked throughout, and have a great deal of evidence that these equations work. This is why we were able to land on the moon, why you can post on NeoGAF, etc. I then recommended that you actually do some research because I thought you might be surprised at all the shit you thought was unanswered but really wasn't.

 

[Pixel Pete]

another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. How do we know that our equations are the rightful equation for measuring outer space. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way

Jut had to re-post it since many people were ignoring it.

Variables.

 

[Orayn]

There are multiple links on this page. Click. Read. Learn.

That dog won't hunt. Apparently, we have to explain it to him, and if he finds our explanation inadequate or just doesn't get it, we're wrong.
For the love of Tom Hanks, I feel like I'm dealing with Mr. Mxyzptlk here. Anyone wanna try tricking him into spelling his name backwards to see if it'll make him go away?

 

[Subtervotion]

another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way

Jut had to re-post it since many people were ignoring it.

I read it the first time, it a pretty weak argument. Of course the same rules don't apply. You have two completely different situations. You have to account for wind.

Why does math have to be different on other planets?

 

[teh_pwn]

I believe in God - Catholic here - and I completely understand the atheistic/agnostic position, and have respect for it. Now I don't, and have never, perceived a conflict between Science and my faith. I do however see conflicts in between belief systems that want to define Science a certain way that it becomes basically exclusive to their camp.

To New Atheists: The morality objection is an interesting one, since we still live in a civilization that was put together by Christians, and infused with Christian morality. Even though Christianity has faded significantly from the forefront of popular society, pretending that were all 'moral agents' with no debt to the belief system of our ancestors is awfully shortsighted. Not to mention just simply wrong.

To Theists: Stop trotting out clumsy morality arguments! First off, explain why you think that transcendental laws - linked to a creator - are necessary to have some kind of morality that isn't barbaric and inhumane. Telling me, a believer myself, that because God exists you know how to be good is extremely simplistic, in the bad way. I can think of several ways that a reasonable and humane morality can be established - utilitarianism, for a facile example - now tell me why your morality is better than that.

Morality came from christian religion? What specific morals are those? Do non-christian nations not have laws and moral codes? Do largely atheist nations not have laws and moral codes? Have you ever read about the Dark Ages of Europe and what kind of player the Catholic Church was?

What kind of person would only pretend to be moral if they were threatened with violence?

 

[Air]

I understand you on the first part but I don't agree with the second, or at least I don't think its applicable in many cases.

Religions and religious teachings are not static, even if they all seek to stay in conformance with their holy books (and a ton of oral tradition). New interpretations and methods are always springing up in light of new discoveries or world changes. Its not "I know, because I know", its "I believe because I have been brought up, or have sought out ancient knowledge that resonates with my personal experience".

Its when we start discussing "facts on the ground" that things turn pretty nasty. Whether this verse here is literal or metaphorical. Whether its true history or just a method of some particular realization of the human condition.

Basically to me, religion and spirituality have a place and a reason for being, and even their own internal logic (sometimes inconsistent with purpose), which operates on a different level than something like the scientific method. But popular religion, like popular science doesn't delve into the deeper discussions at the fringe of each discipline where the real work and change takes place.

Edit: Actually I take that last line back. Science is far more transparent with the discussions that happen at the fringe. The raw stuff that leads to new theories and calls into question previous assumptions.

Quoted, because I think this is an excellent post

 

[DarthWoo]

another question how come Scientists use the same mathematical equation that was created by man to measure outer space, is space supposed to conform to our equations. How do we know that our equations are the rightful equation for measuring outer space. An example if a flew a paper plane in a non windy condition and i flew another in a windy condition does the same rule apply to both of them? will they act the same way

Jut had to re-post it since many people were ignoring it.

You see, there's this whole branch of science called "aerodynamics" that deals with things like that. Models can be created and experimented upon and with enough data, the behavior of such a paper plane could be accurately predicted given enough data on the wind conditions. The same goes for observed data about the cosmos and how new discoveries fit in with predictions based on previous data and experimentation. Are you sure you're not trolling?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Cause no one in this country fucking says "Thank Buddha". I (we) grew up in a culture that says "Jesus" or "thank god" when they are appropriate. Im sure the firsst person who used them in that capacity believed in god, but now its part of the english language.

Since you seemed to ignore it, have you ever heard someone say the phrase "This tastes like shit"?...Do you really think they have tasted shit?

Ayayayai, if you do not believe in God then why "Thank God". If i didn't believe that you went to china but i went and told somebody that you went to china am i not contradicting myself. I don't care if it's a popular saying if you truly don't believe in anything there is no reason for you to utter such an expression. Is that so hard to understand, you are contradicting yourself.


Edit: I gotta say this is one man against a million, it's fun but note that i can't reply to all of you because i have a life outside of Gaf.