The four horseman of the apocalypse, now

[denoir 0]

Our senses percieve the universe in a way which is both the same for everyone and consistent.  Our instruments verify this.  If individuals were being manipulated, or basic physical laws were being manipulated, this would show up as differences in observations and results of tests.  It doesn't.

Our instruments are only as good as our senses. Without our senses we could not use them. And if the manipulation is global of all individuals, there would be no difference in observations. It would still be the same for everyone.

Also as appealing as science is, it only answers the "how" question, and not the "why" question that humans are so fond of. Physics explains how gravity works, but it does not explain why there is gravity in the first place. It's philosophy and theology that deals with the "why" question. As it is not quantifiable or measurable, any theory is possible. Including religion. And I'm not talking about the Bible or any other human made religious text/interpretation, but the possibility of a "higher power". The statements:

1) The physical laws were created through the self-organization of the universe

2) The physical laws were created by a huge pink bunny

are just as provable and just as plausible. We don't have any frames of reference or any posibility to perform empirical experiments on that. Any assumption could be valid and we cannot generalize from our other experiences, scientific or not, as this is on a meta level that we know nothing about.

[Tamme 0]

Quote[/b] ]Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 11:34

At the time Jesus was alive. He was real and nothing stopped you from interacting with him. Today it's again matter of faith.

Quote[/b] ]Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Matthew 10:21

In that verse Jesus is talking about the future persecution against the crhistians.

Quote[/b] ]Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

He's teaching us to live by the will of God

Quote[/b] ]Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

As I said before, if you say "I don't believe in God and Jesus it's bullshit" That's when you're going to hell. This time Jesus had shown them Gods power in their cities, but still they did not believe.

Quote[/b] ]Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God.(The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. “An all the fowls were filled with their flesh.†Revelations 19:20-21

You cannot justify any of the cruelties you mentioned in your previous post with that. It says in the bible that when the end of the world comes, Jesus will condemn us. Excactly what happens in Revelations 19:20-21. That does not give us the right to condemn those who do not believe in god.

Quote[/b] ]Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.†Matthew 15:4-7

The idea behind these cruel punishments is fear. You are so frightened for the punishment that you obey the rules.

Quote[/b] ]Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

Leaving your wife and children for Jesus is not a prerequisite for getting to heaven. Jesus does not say that you must do it. It's a test of faith, how far are you willing to go for God?

Quote[/b] ]Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

This is the same incident than in Matthew 15:4-7

Quote[/b] ]Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25

That is an out-of-content quote. Read Mark 4:21-25  I'll let you solve the metaphore yourself.

Quote[/b] ]Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus didn't put the devils in the pigs. The devils prayed him to let them go in to the pigs.

Quote[/b] ]Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13

He didn't kill the tree.

Quote[/b] ]Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

Great job with that totally out-of-content quote. Read Luke 12:35-48. Again I'll let you solve the metaphore yourself.

Quote[/b] ]I have more.

Keep 'em coming.

[Placebo 29]

Your beliefs are simply stupid and useless.

Your attitude is continually being unpleasant, if you can't discuss this topic without calling people stupid, foolish, useless etc. etc. then you won't discuss it anymore, people have been civil to you, do the same to them. And before you try to be pedantic, as far as I'm concerned saying something such as what I quoted is the same as if you say "You are simply stupid and useless".

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Our instruments are only as good as our senses. Without our senses we could not use them. And if the manipulation is global of all individuals, there would be no difference in observations. It would still be the same for everyone.

Wrong.  All facets of the universe are linked in some way.  It is not possible to manipulate mass without manipulating gravity, without in turn changing energy, etc etc ; all things are interconnected by the basic laws of physics.  If something is changed it WILL show up, and it does not.  One might argue on philosophical grounds that a god whose interference with the universe appears exactly the same as no interference at all is an unessesary entitity and should be removed by Ooccam's Razor.  In other words, what good is a god that does nothing?

Quote[/b] ]Also as appealing as science is, it only answers the "how" question, and not the "why" question that humans are so fond of. Physics explains how gravity works, but it does not explain why there is gravity in the first place.

You are assuming that there even is a 'why' question.  Mistake.  Just because our primitive animal brains are scared of the immensity of the cosmos does not mean that there must be an invisible fairy in the sky.

I think you'll find, however, that physics has already answered that question: because two bodies which have mass exert a force on each other.  It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

I've said it before, and I shall reiterate: Religions are *NOT* theories, nor hypotheses.

Quote[/b] ]1) The physical laws were created through the self-organization of the universe

2) The physical laws were created by a huge pink bunny

are just as provable and just as plausible.

Sack whooever taught you science.  Rubbish.  I'm not dignifying that with a response.

Also, science does not pretend to have all the answers.  Not knowing with 100% certainty exactly how the universe came into being does not mean that 'GAWD DID IT' is any more plausible.

Quote[/b] ] We don't have any frames of reference or any posibility to perform empirical experiments on that.

There are currently hundreds of experiments going on around the world researching the formation of the universe.  You are simply wrong here.  From temperature plotting of ancient stars and interstellar space to the analysis of  the composition of stars and stellar phenomena, there is evidence which is being experimented with.

[denoir 0]

Wrong.  All facets of the universe are linked in some way.  It is not possible to manipulate mass without manipulating gravity, without in turn changing energy, etc etc ; all things are interconnected by the basic laws of physics.  If something is changed it WILL show up, and it does not.  

One might argue on philosophical grounds that a god whose interference with the universe appears exactly the same as no interference at all is an unessesary entitity and should be removed by Ooccam's Razor.  In other words, what good is a god that does nothing?

How will it "show up" if all our senses provide an arbitrary picture? The only reference we have are the information that we recieve through our senses. We can't compare them against anything absolute. Me talking to you right now might be a figment of my imagination. I cannot prove that this all is not just an elaborate fantasy. I see your text, I feel the keyboard I'm typing on.. but who is to say that anything of that is real. Within this imagination of mine there could be consistent laws (like physics) but I have no way of telling what is "outside". What the reality is.

Quote[/b] ]I think you'll find, however, that physics has already answered that question: because two bodies which have mass exert a force on each other.  It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

That's not a why, that's a how. Why do they exert a force? To further my point, I'll be glad to tell you that you are wrong, stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics. Gravity is not a force, it's a deformation of space-time caused by matter. What you call a "force" is actually just the bodies sliding to the energy minima of the field.

So, were you wrong? Or were you using just a radically different model to explain how the same phenomena works?

Quote[/b] ]There are currently hundreds of experiments going on around the world researching the formation of the universe.  You are simply wrong here.  From temperature plotting of ancient stars and interstellar space to the analysis of  the composition of stars and stellar phenomena, there is evidence which is being experimented with.

We're not talking about the creation of the universe (btw, "creation"? are you getting religious on me? ). We're talking about the physics governing the universe. It's one meta level above.

Now, since you seem to lack any form of scientific education, I'll give you one lesson for free:

Any scientific model, theory or hypothesis has a:

1) Frame of reference

2) Boundary conditions

The frame of reference is needed to relate it to other theories, measurements etc. The boundary condition are very necessary to define as there is no such thing as a complete physical model. They all have boundaries beyond which they don't work. You also have to realize the difference between a model and reality. The physical theories that we have are a projection of the real world, conformed in such ways that it fits our sensory input.

Why is this important in our discussion?

1) The frame of reference decides if we at all can form a theory. If you are sitting in a box, you can't very well describe how the outside of the box looks like. You can't model physics through physics. You can only build relative models. An absolute frame of reference has to be one level above the system you are studying.

2) Recognizing the boundaries of the model is also extremely important. You have for instance quantum singularities where no normal physical laws apply. Know the limits of your system. That is basic science.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

At the time Jesus was alive. He was real and nothing stopped you from interacting with him. Today it's again matter of faith.

As you conveniently side step the main point of that quote, which was that jesus threatened to kill people, with a sword, if, say, a mother loved her child more than him.  Not 'if she didn't love Jesus' - if she loved someone SLIGHTLY MORE THAN him.

Quote[/b] ]

In that verse Jesus is talking about the future persecution against the crhistians.

Ohhhh no he isnt.  Your interpretation is wrong*

Quote[/b] ]

He's teaching us to live by the will of God

Which includes such nifty things as slitting open the stomachs of pregnant women, sacrificing your own children, rules governing and condoning slavery, laws stating that rape victims could be bought by the rapist for a pittance, laws banning women from [speaking in church, holding public official jobs, teaching etc], promising rewards for those who kill handicapped people (2 sam 5;8, in case you think I'm making that up) and a lot more things equally bad.  The 'Will of God' you refer to was as inhuman as it was evil and barbaric.  The Old Testament is full of disgusting, evil acts, which is why Xians normally make such a song and dance about how Jesus changed some of the rules.

Quote[/b] ]

As I said before, if you say "I don't believe in God and Jesus it's bullshit" That's when you're going to hell. This time Jesus had shown them Gods power in their cities, but still they did not believe.

He went round to every single house and showed them did he?  Every single child lying in a crib, too young to walk, talk or understand anything, every single bed ridden cripple was shown?  In the couple of days he was there?

All those people were innocent and were killed for spite (in the story, as it didn't really happen)

Quote[/b] ]

You cannot justify any of the cruelties you mentioned in your previous post with that. It says in the bible that when the end of the world comes, Jesus will condemn us. Excactly what happens in Revelations 19:20-21. That does not give us the right to condemn those who do not believe in god.

This was simply an example of biblical cruelty.  And it stands.

Quote[/b] ]

The idea behind these cruel punishments is fear. You are so frightened for the punishment that you obey the rules.

If you have to be motivated by fear to be a moral person, there is something seriously wrong with you.  Get help, please.

Quote[/b] ]

Leaving your wife and children for Jesus is not a prerequisite for getting to heaven. Jesus does not say that you must do it. It's a test of faith, how far are you willing to go for God?

'Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him.'

That is child cruelty, plain and simple.  Its evil and its disgusting.

[quoteThis is the same incident than in Matthew 15:4-7

And its similarly wrong and evil.

Quote[/b] ]

That is an out-of-content quote. Read Mark 4:21-25  I'll let you solve the metaphore yourself.

In your opinion/ interpretation it is.  In others it is not.  I thought that this book was simple and easy to understand (your words.)  You are contradicting yourself. (again)

[quoteJesus didn't put the devils in the pigs. The devils prayed him to let them go in to the pigs.

So you're saying that devils can tell jesus what to do now?

Yet more examples of your interpretation diverging from others, proving the point of my post  - that anyone can make their own interpretation.

Quote[/b] ]

He didn't kill the tree.

Yes he did.  Once again, you are ignoring the point and trying to divert attention with squabbling over ambiguous words.

Quote[/b] ]

Great job with that totally out-of-content quote. Read Luke 12:35-48. Again I'll let you solve the metaphore yourself.

Ahh the christian solution to everything: 'thats out of context'.  I have read it.  I think its completely in context.  More examples of selective interpretation.

Quote[/b] ]keep 'em coming

no, I think I'll wait for you to answer these ones correctly first.

*I am aware of the irony of what I just said, that was the whole point of that line.  I was going to leave it at that but undoubtedly someone who cant read would think I was being hypocritical.  the point is that he is dismissing everyone elses interpretations and proclaiming that his is the only correct one.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Your beliefs are simply stupid and useless.

Your attitude is continually being unpleasant, if you can't discuss this topic without calling people stupid, foolish, useless etc. etc. then you won't discuss it anymore, people have been civil to you, do the same to them. And before you try to be pedantic, as far as I'm concerned saying something such as what I quoted is the same as if you say "You are simply stupid and useless".

You are going to have to clarify this. Personally I don't define people by their beliefs. To me, an otherwise intelligent person can hold stupid beliefs. That doesn't define them. Are you saying that someones beliefs in invisible fairies is *the* defining feature about them?

Was King Charles VI of France stupid because he believed his legs and anus were made of glass and would shatter if he sat in a coach? (apart from his being insane, is that a stupid belief?)

If someone has any other type of mental illness that manifests itself in hallucinations and delusions, they are held to be insane. The exact same symptoms with marginally different settings are held in high esteem. Why?

[Placebo 29]

You are going to have to clarify this.  

It's simple, stop calling people and/or their beliefs stupid/foolish or whatever, if you disagree with them fine say "I disagree with you" or "I think you're wrong", telling them their beliefs are stupid is tandamount to flame baiting which as you'll see from the rules isn't on.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

How will it "show up" if all our senses provide an arbitrary picture? The only reference we have are the information that we recieve through our senses. We can't compare them against anything absolute. Me talking to you right now might be a figment of my imagination. I cannot prove that this all is not just an elaborate fantasy. I see your text, I feel the keyboard I'm typing on.. but who is to say that anything of that is real. Within this imagination of mine there could be consistent laws (like physics) but I have no way of telling what is "outside". What the reality is.

Even if all that is only a simulation, the rules of that simulation are consistent and can be discovered. All that adds is unnecessary complexity and can be removed via Occam's Razor. There is no need of such a hypothesis to explain the universe.

Quote[/b] ]

That's not a why, that's a how.

The why needs to be no more than 'because thats how they work.

Quote[/b] ]

Why do they exert a force? To further my point, I'll be glad to tell you that you are wrong, stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics. Gravity is not a force, it's a deformation of space-time caused by matter. What you call a "force" is actually just the bodies sliding to the energy minima of the field.

'Force' isn't wrong, its merely a simplified way of calculating the deformation. 'Invisible gravity fairies move everything about' would be 'wrong.' You are skirting the issue of why there must be a 'why'.

Quote[/b] ]

So, were you wrong? Or were you using just a radically different model to explain how the same phenomena works?

Or was I using fairly standard terminology for calculating how that phenomena works?

Quote[/b] ]

We're not talking about the creation of the universe (btw, "creation"? are you getting religious on me? ).

I said formation, not creation ;)

We're talking about the physics governing the universe. It's one meta level above.

Now, since you seem to lack any form of scientific education, I'll give you one lesson for free:

Any scientific model, theory or hypothesis has a:

1) Frame of reference

2) Boundary conditions

Hey hey with the ad hominems! There's no need to add personal insults! If you do understand science, why did you use terminology incorrectly (eg calling religion a theory?)

Quote[/b] ]

The frame of reference is needed to relate it to other theories, measurements etc. The boundary condition are very necessary to define as there is no such thing as a complete physical model. They all have boundaries beyond which they don't work. You also have to realize the difference between a model and reality. The physical theories that we have are a projection of the real world, conformed in such ways that it fits our sensory input.

Why is this important in our discussion?

1) The frame of reference decides if we at all can form a theory. If you are sitting in a box, you can't very well describe how the outside of the box looks like. You can't model physics through physics. You can only build relative models. An absolute frame of reference has to be one level above the system you are studying.

2) Recognizing the boundaries of the model is also extremely important. You have for instance quantum singularities where no normal physical laws apply. Know the limits of your system. That is basic science.

Whats your point? That religion has no frame of reference or working model and science does? Why thank you, I agree.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You are going to have to clarify this.  

It's simple, stop calling people and/or their beliefs stupid/foolish or whatever, if you disagree with them fine say "I disagree with you" or "I think you're wrong", telling them their beliefs are stupid is tandamount to flame baiting which as you'll see from the rules isn't on.

Quote[/b] ]Was King Charles VI of France stupid because he believed his legs and anus were made of glass and would shatter if he sat in a coach? (apart from his being insane, is that a stupid belief?)

[denoir 0]

Even if all that is only a simulation, the rules of that simulation are consistent and can be discovered.  All that adds is unnecessary complexity and can be removed via Occam's Razor.  There is no need of such a hypothesis to explain the universe.

You can't apply Occam's Razor (which is in many cases an incorrect principle) as you have no way of knowing which theory is more simple as you do not know the alternative theory. Furthermore it's a principle derived from our system of reference (which could be a simulation) for which you have no guarentees is even remotely plausible.

Quote[/b] ]'Force' isn't wrong, its merely a simplified way of calculating the deformation. 'Invisible gravity fairies move everything about' would be 'wrong.'

And how exactly would you know that? Do you think Newton knew he was dealing with an approximation?

Quote[/b] ]You are skirting the issue of why there must be a 'why'.

There must be a why because "why" is just a meta level of "how", and you can continue with those in infinity.

Quote[/b] ]If you do understand science, why did you use terminology incorrectly (eg calling religion a theory?)

Dictionary definition:

Quote[/b] ]

the·o·ry

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Quote[/b] ]Whats your point? That religion has no frame of reference or working model and science does? Why thank you, I agree.

No, my point is that science has its limitations in terms of frame of reference and boundary. You can't evaluate science by science since you have no fixed point of reference. Science has its boundaries and any serious scientist acknowledges that. For the last 300 years, no serious scientist has believed in a Grand Theory Of Everything.

Science cannot solve philosophical questions. It's on a level above it. And if you have any respect for science then you should acknowledge what areas it applies to and what it does not.

Also, you should have a respect for other people's religious beliefs. You do know that most of the greatest scientist that have lived were religious - Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger and even today people like Steven Hawking. Are you doubting their intelligence and their knowledge about science?

[Placebo 29]

You are going to have to clarify this.  

It's simple, stop calling people and/or their beliefs stupid/foolish or whatever, if you disagree with them fine say "I disagree with you" or "I think you're wrong", telling them their beliefs are stupid is tandamount to flame baiting which as you'll see from the rules isn't on.

Quote[/b] ]Was King Charles VI of France stupid because he believed his legs and anus were made of glass and would shatter if he sat in a coach?  (apart from his being insane, is that a stupid belief?)

Yes I too can play the quoting game...

Quote[/b] ]§3)Follow the instructions of the moderators

When a moderator or BIS staff asks you to do or not to do something, follow their instructions.

From the board rules, next time you breach them you will be post restricted, perhaps then you will understand what I'm saying, as clearly we don't speak the same language.

[Balschoiw 0]

you see ?

Religion and forums don´t fit. Everyone should get happy with his own believe or not-believe. Disgussing a religiouse issue or discussing the matter of religion in general will never lead to a reasonable outcome. Same with religiouse proof, history and such.

Allahu akhbar!

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Dictionary definition:

Quote

the·o·ry

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

None of which describes religion, hence why it is incorrect to refer to it as a theory. Especially so when used in the scientific sense.

Quote[/b] ]Also, you should have a respect for other people's religious beliefs. You do know that most of the greatest scientist that have lived were religious - Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger and even today people like Steven Hawking. Are you doubting their intelligence and their knowledge about science?

Hawking is an atheist. He has said so himself. Einstein believed in a sort of Taoist 'god' which has no resemblance to what most people would call a god. What most intelligent people have in common is lack of religion. I'm not surprised Newton et al were slightly religious, there simply was not a better explanation in their time, coupled with immense social pressure and lack of data which we have now.

Science is not perfect but rational thought and the scientific method are the only way to establish facts. You cannot determine what is true or not any other way. Theres nothing wrong with philosophy; there is a LOT wrong with religion.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You can't apply Occam's Razor (which is in many cases an incorrect principle)

Such as when?  

Quote[/b] ]as you have no way of knowing which theory is more simple as you do not know the alternative theory

W T F are you talking about?  Since when do you need to know all alternate theories to establish if an aspect of one theory is completely unnecessary?

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore it's a principle derived from our system of reference (which could be a simulation) for which you have no guarentees is even remotely plausible.

Its the best we have.  Thats enough.  For the 56034th time.

Quote[/b] ]And how exactly would you know that? Do you think Newton knew he was dealing with an approximation?

Once again I really have to draw issue with your understanding of science.  Why would he need to know that?  His theory fit the observed facts and had a working model.  The fact that it was later refined and improved is the whole aim behind science!  Are you seriously saying you don't understand this?

Quote[/b] ]There must be a why because "why" is just a meta level of "how", and you can continue with those in infinity.

There must be a why because 'glibarts' are out of season.  Oh look gobbledegook.  You can continue anything in infinity, thats what infinity means.

Quote[/b] ]Also, you should have a respect for other people's religious beliefs

Will somebody please answer this question: why do you respect someones belief that an invisible man is living in the sky watching everything you do, who has self contradictory properties; BUT you do NOT respect someone's belief that the sausage people have invaded and all must be tested in the holy meat grinder?

Answer.  Answer.

[Bernadotte 0]

Was King Charles VI of France stupid because he believed his legs and anus were made of glass and would shatter if he sat in a coach?  (apart from his being insane, is that a stupid belief?)

Umm... yes.

[Bernadotte 0]

Will somebody please answer this question: why do you respect someones belief that an invisible man is living in the sky watching everything you do, who has self contradictory properties; BUT you do NOT respect someone's belief that the sausage people have invaded and all must be tested in the holy meat grinder?

Answer.  Answer.

Deep inside, most people have a very strong need to be observed and judged.  This is one of the reasons video games are so popular.  The software challenges you, observes your decisions, judges your accomplishments and keeps score.  What game does not observe and judge the player? It's a need that sells.

For many people, the all-seeing all-knowing judge in the sky serves the same function.  This is why I can respect "someone's belief that an invisible man is living in the sky, but not someone's belief that the sausage people have invaded and all must be tested in the holy meat grinder."

By the way, a lot of people are able to understand this concept.  There's no rule that says you have to be one of them.

[denoir 0]

You can't apply Occam's Razor (which is in many cases an incorrect principle)

Such as when?  

Just about every theory in cosmology where most theories have been known to be far more complex than ever expected. Furthermore simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do.

Also you are completely missing the point of Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor:

Quote[/b] ]When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better.

First of all, religion and science are not competing theories. If you are believing that then you don't grasp the basic ideas of neither religion nor science. Secondly, they don't make the same predictions at all.

Quote[/b] ]W T F are you talking about?  Since when do you need to know all alternate theories to establish if an aspect of one theory is completely unnecessary?

Occam's razor can separate two theories which make the same predictions but does not rule out other theories which might make a different prediction.

Quote[/b] ]His theory fit the observed facts and had a working model.  The fact that it was later refined and improved is the whole aim behind science!  Are you seriously saying you don't understand this?

No, what I'm saying is that you don't understand that. The only certain thing about scientific theories is that they change. Yet you are advocating that the current theories we have are giving the absolutely correct views of the universe and that additions to current theories are impossible to include other base principles such as the existance of a god.

Quote[/b] ]Will somebody please answer this question: why do you respect someones belief that an invisible man is living in the sky watching everything you do, who has self contradictory properties; BUT you do NOT respect someone's belief that the sausage people have invaded and all must be tested in the holy meat grinder?

Your views on religion are extremely simplistic. The answer is very simple: The sausage people theory would be observable and measurable. The measurements would disprove the theory. That's not possible for a general concept of "god".

I'm suggesting that you read up a bit on both science and religion since you have here shown a total misunderstanding of both at the most fundamental level.

I'll end this post with two quotes, one by Wernher von Braun, the rocket pioneer and one by philosopher Thornton Whaling who was a rabid atheist but understood the limits of science.

To understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. And there is certainly no scientific reason why God cannot retain the same position in our modern world that He held before we began probing His creation with telescope and cyclotron.... I deplore the attitude that scientific enlightenment and religious beliefs are incompatible. I consider it one of the greatest tragedies of our times that this is so widely believed.... Through a closer look at creation, we ought to gain a better knowledge of the Creator; and a greater sense of man’s responsibility to God will come into focus.... Science and religion are not antagonists, but sisters. Both seek ultimate truth. Science helps to reveal more about the creator through His creation.... The public has a deep respect for the amazing scientific advancements made within our lifetime. There is admiration for the scientific process of observation, experimentation, of testing every concept to measure its validity. But it still bothers some people that we cannot prove scientifically that God exists. Must we light a candle to see the sun?

Physical science knows by experimentation and observation; historical science knows through credible testimony; psychology, by immediate consciousness of freedom and personality; philosophy through the universal laws of pure reason or thought; religion, by the answer of the infinite Personality to the call of moral and spiritual need. And to claim that knowledge belongs alone to any one of these fields is to ignore the breadth of possible knowledge and the high endowments of human nature, through a certain concealed Pharisaism which is the essence of conceit and obsurantism. For natural science, history, psychology, ethics, philosophy, or religion to affirm that there is only one mode of cognition, and that way its own, is to betray a fatuous pride which convicts of lack of real culture in the court of high reason.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Dictionary definition:

Quote  

the·o·ry

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

None of which describes religion, hence why it is incorrect to refer to it as a theory.  Especially so when used in the scientific sense.

All of them exactly describe religion. Why all this irrational hate towards religion? Were abused by a priest as a child or something?

Quote[/b] ]Hawking is an atheist. He has said so himself. Einstein believed in a sort of Taoist 'god' which has no resemblance to what most people would call a god.

You are right about Hawking, I was thinking of Penrose, his buddy. You are wrong about Einstein. He was a follower of Judaism. But that's irrelevant, he did believe in a higher power manifested through what he refered to as "God" - something that you are trying to dismiss as a lack of intelligence.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not surprised Newton et al were slightly religious, there simply was not a better explanation in their time, coupled with immense social pressure and lack of data which we have now.

Really, what data might that be?

Quote[/b] ]Science is not perfect but rational thought and the scientific method are the only way to establish facts. You cannot determine what is true or not any other way.

Again, basic concepts of science seem to elude you. Science has its limited domain and beyond that it is useless.

Ok, let me illustrate this by example. How would science answer this question:

"When is the sacrifice of one for the benefit of the many acceptable?"

I'll give you a hint: it can't. It's not in its domain.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just about every theory in cosmology where most theories have been known to be far more complex than ever expected. Furthermore simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do.

That doesn't have any bearing on Occam's Razor. 'Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.' IE use the simplest theory that fits the facts. That doesn't mean that if you get new facts you can't change the theory you use/ test.

Quote[/b] ]Yet you are advocating that the current theories we have are giving the absolutely correct views of the universe and that additions to current theories are impossible to include other base principles such as the existance of a god

No. No, I am not. I don't know where you got that idea but its completely wrong. I've said on numerous occasions that we don't know everything nor are we anywhere near knowing everything, and that theories must be changed to fit the facts.

What I *have said*, is that those facts do not and will not include magical fairies in the sky without any sort of evidence of them. Should such evidence turn up, then it will; but the likelyhood of that is rather less than everyone on the planet simultaneously turning into ice skating mongooses and dancing the bolero. Until there is any sort of evidence for these delusions that affect people, they should not be taken seriously.

Quote[/b] ]Your views on religion are extremely simplistic. The answer is very simple: The sausage people theory would be observable and measurable. The measurements would disprove the theory. That's not possible for a general concept of "god".

I'm glad you have finally admitted this. Now, what if the sausage people were invisible and undetectable? (according to the person's beliefs)

Is it still possible to use measurements to prove they don't exist? Or do you have to use something else to determine their existance?

I had to simplify things to write it all down.

Quote[/b] ]more ad hominems not based in reality

Yes, Einstein was a clever man. He wasn't a jew in anything but the racial sense though.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

All of them exactly describe religion.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then. I can't see any connection at all though. Fact/ evidence vs 'stuff an old guy made up to suit his own purposes'

Quote[/b] ]Why all this irrational hate towards religion? Were abused by a priest as a child or something?

Because its a complete waste of time and causes a lot more problems than it 'solves,' causes division, hatred and prejudice and is intrumental in creating a lot of problems.

Quote[/b] ]You are right about Hawking, I was thinking of Penrose, his buddy. You are wrong about Einstein. He was a follower of Judaism.

Not according to Einstein he isn't.

Quote[/b] ]

But that's irrelevant, he did believe in a higher power manifested through what he refered to as "God" - something that you are trying to dismiss as a lack of intelligence.

He believed in an impersonal force ordering the universe which he referred to as god in a similar way as Hawking refers to 'the mind of god'. Regardless, if you read my passage I atrributed religion, especially organised religion, as a symptom of lack of intelligence, not belief in a higher power.

Quote[/b] ]Really, what data might that be?

300 years of scientific development? You want me to list it all?

Quote[/b] ]

Again, basic concepts of science seem to elude you. Science has its limited domain and beyond that it is useless.

Ok, let me illustrate this by example. How would science answer this question:

"When is the sacrifice of one for the benefit of the many acceptable?"

Again, basic words of my post seem to elude you. Are you trying to obsfucate? rational thought - solution of any problem.

Quote[/b] ]I'll give you a hint: it can't. It's not in its domain.

You can solve any problem with rationality.

[Major Fubar 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why all this irrational hate towards religion? Were abused by a priest as a child or something?  

Because its a complete waste of time and causes a lot more problems than it 'solves,' causes division, hatred and prejudice and is intrumental in creating a lot of problems.

You could say the same about personal property and belongings...should we all give up our personal posessions and wealth to create a socialist paradise?

Getting rid of religion would not solve many of the worlds Ills...people who are now prepared to kill in the name of religion would probably be just as willing to kill in the name of King, country or state if religion didn't exist...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I disagree on both points.

[Tamme 0]

At the time Jesus was alive. He was real and nothing stopped you from interacting with him. Today it's again matter of faith.

As you conveniently side step the main point of that quote, which was that jesus threatened to kill people, with a sword, if, say, a mother loved her child more than him.  Not 'if she didn't love Jesus' - if she loved someone SLIGHTLY MORE THAN him.

He didn't say he'd kill them with a sword. I don't really understand where you got that idea. Having a hard time understanding simple metaphores don't you?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]In that verse Jesus is talking about the future persecution against the crhistians.

Ohhhh no he isnt.  Your interpretation is wrong*

Ask any priest or any religious person and he or she will tell you that in that verse Jesus talking about the future persecution against christians. In my bible Matthew 10:16-31 is labeled "Jesus encourages to bear the persecution" Now even you should get it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

He's teaching us to live by the will of God

Which includes such nifty things as slitting open the stomachs of pregnant women, sacrificing your own children, rules governing and condoning slavery, laws stating that rape victims could be bought by the rapist for a pittance, laws banning women from [speaking in church, holding public official jobs, teaching etc], promising rewards for those who kill handicapped people (2 sam 5;8, in case you think I'm making that up) and a lot more things equally bad.  The 'Will of God' you refer to was as inhuman as it was evil and barbaric.  The Old Testament is full of disgusting, evil acts, which is why Xians normally make such a song and dance about how Jesus changed some of the rules.

If christianity is such a cruel religion then why are we not living like that?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

As I said before, if you say "I don't believe in God and Jesus it's bullshit" That's when you're going to hell. This time Jesus had shown them Gods power in their cities, but still they did not believe.

He went round to every single house and showed them did he?  Every single child lying in a crib, too young to walk, talk or understand anything, every single bed ridden cripple was shown?  In the couple of days he was there?

All those people were innocent and were killed for spite (in the story, as it didn't really happen)

Again he didn't kill them. He cursed them, they will go to hell when the Doomsday comes. In my bible Matthew 11:20-24 is labeled "Jesus blames Galilean towns" Now even you should get it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

You cannot justify any of the cruelties you mentioned in your previous post with that. It says in the bible that when the end of the world comes, Jesus will condemn us. Excactly what happens in Revelations 19:20-21. That does not give us the right to condemn those who do not believe in god.

This was simply an example of biblical cruelty.  And it stands.

So you think that evil should not be destroyed?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

The idea behind these cruel punishments is fear. You are so frightened for the punishment that you obey the rules.

If you have to be motivated by fear to be a moral person, there is something seriously wrong with you.  Get help, please.

I take that as an insult and wait for your apology.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Leaving your wife and children for Jesus is not a prerequisite for getting to heaven. Jesus does not say that you must do it. It's a test of faith, how far are you willing to go for God?

'Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him.'

That is child cruelty, plain and simple.  Its evil and its disgusting.

He says that everyone who abandons their house, brothers, or sisters, father, mother, or children or crops, will be rewarded. He doesn't say they have to.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]This is the same incident than in Matthew 15:4-7

And its similarly wrong and evil.

You were just trying to get more 'bad' quotes by quoting the same thing twice.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

That is an out-of-content quote. Read Mark 4:21-25  I'll let you solve the metaphore yourself.

In your opinion/ interpretation it is.  In others it is not.  I thought that this book was simple and easy to understand (your words.)  You are contradicting yourself. (again)

When I said 'simple and easy to understand' I didn't say that there wasn't any metaphores, but they are so simple that anyone understands them. Again Mark 4:21-25 is Labeled "Right hearing of the word" Now even you should get it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Jesus didn't put the devils in the pigs. The devils prayed him to let them go in to the pigs.

So you're saying that devils can tell jesus what to do now?

I never said that

Quote[/b] ]Yet more examples of your interpretation diverging from others, proving the point of my post  - that anyone can make their own interpretation.

Quote[/b] ]

He didn't kill the tree.

Yes he did.  Once again, you are ignoring the point and trying to divert attention with squabbling over ambiguous words.

He said: "Let no one eat your fruit" Dunno what he was up to, but it doesn't sound like killing to me. He cursed it, doesn't always mean killing.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Great job with that totally out-of-content quote. Read Luke 12:35-48. Again I'll let you solve the metaphore yourself.

Ahh the christian solution to everything: 'thats out of context'.  I have read it.  I think its completely in context.  More examples of selective interpretation.

He is obviously talking about his return on earth. Again go ask a priest what he thinks about it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]keep 'em coming

no, I think I'll wait for you to answer these ones correctly first.

Satisfied now? Of course not.

Quote[/b] ]*I am aware of the irony of what I just said, that was the whole point of that line.  I was going to leave it at that but undoubtedly someone who cant read would think I was being hypocritical.  the point is that he is dismissing everyone elses interpretations and proclaiming that his is the only correct one.

I am not the only one with these interpretations. All christians would give you the same answers.

Having this discussion with you is frustrating due to your narrow mindness, insulting attitude, and your lack of knowledge on the subject. You purposely leave out all the good that Jesus did, trying to defame christianity and christians.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]I am not the only one with these interpretations. All christians would give you the same answers.

L O L

That must be why there is only one branch of christianity then, not thousands of different ones, all squabbling over different interpretations.

Quote[/b] ]Having this discussion with you is frustrating due to your narrow mindness, insulting attitude, and your lack of knowledge on the subject. You purposely leave out all the good that Jesus did, trying to defame christianity and christians.

Allegedly did.

Having discussions with christians is frustrating because they don't listen to anyone else and think that their own individual interpretation is 'obviously right' when its only one of thousands.

You again ignored many of the points. I'm fed up of your inability to debate.