NationStates Jolt Archive

1) No but you can predict it. I predict that it is round.
Fine.
Predict me then what happens inside a black hole, beyond the event horizon.
Tell me what was the world like before the Big Bang.
You can't?
Science doesn't claim it can explain everything. And considering the examples above, it doesn't even have high hopes to explain them in the foreseable future.
Not that it has any bearing on the question of God's existence whatsoever, but it irks me to see people claiming science can do things it can not.

1) No but you can predict it. I predict that it is round.

Your prediction is based on a paradigm called classical realism. It assumes that all objects have certain objective and inherent properties that can be measured and quantified. The data surrounding experiments with subatomic particles does not suggest that this is the case.

2)yes . . .. these things do not exist save as stated above (as a grouping of beliefs under a arbitrarily chosen name) . Yes they affect the world but that doesn't mean that they are physically a part of it. Btw I do believe in freedom but (and this is a guess btw) I would a assume that you believe in a religion of some type. and im guessing christian this is a guess btw and if im wrong then tell me 9or not w/e) if so then how can you believe in freedom? Your God is omnipotent and thus controls all actions so how can freedom exist at all???

Let's not discuss my beliefs just yet.

You are correct that they do not have a physical existence. In that respect, they are similar to the weird delusions of a schizophrenic. However, the difference is that if people don't act as if the crazy guy is right, it doesn't really matter, but if everyone acted like human rights, democracy, and the patriarchy didn't exist, life would be radically different for all of us. Since there is a measurable effect, we can logically claim that they must have some sort of reality, even though they are not physical.

3) yes but again were not talking about proving negatives and I already went over this. In cases following my stated guidelines above then the burden of proof should be on the person who is making the statement. And can anyone here prove that god exists? anyone? please? lol

Actually, we are discussing proving negatives. If you want to discuss proofs of god instead, I would simply reply that god is outside the scope of scientific experimentation. The most we could do is attempt to measure the effect of god on the natural universe, but that would require so many assumptions about the nature of god that I would be very hesitant about calling it natural science.

Fine.
Predict me then what happens inside a black hole, beyond the event horizon.
Tell me what was the world like before the Big Bang.
You can't?
Science doesn't claim it can explain everything. And considering the examples above, it doesn't even have high hopes to explain them in the foreseable future.
Not that it has any bearing on the question of God's existence whatsoever, but it irks me to see people claiming science can do things it can not.
O I agree. Though I have theories on both those lol but I know what ur getting at lmao. And ya my theories are essentially groundless.

Your prediction is based on a paradigm called classical realism. It assumes that all objects have certain objective and inherent properties that can be measured and quantified. The data surrounding experiments with subatomic particles does not suggest that this is the case.



Let's not discuss my beliefs just yet.

You are correct that they do not have a physical existence. In that respect, they are similar to the weird delusions of a schizophrenic. However, the difference is that if people don't act as if the crazy guy is right, it doesn't really matter, but if everyone acted like human rights, democracy, and the patriarchy didn't exist, life would be radically different for all of us. Since there is a measurable effect, we can logically claim that they must have some sort of reality, even though they are not physical.



Actually, we are discussing proving negatives. If you want to discuss proofs of god instead, I would simply reply that god is outside the scope of scientific experimentation. The most we could do is attempt to measure the effect of god on the natural universe, but that would require so many assumptions about the nature of god that I would be very hesitant about calling it natural science.

1)true but electrons are not subatmoic. anyway you could be right I have no actual way of proving that and that level of quantum mechanics is outta my range.

2)Now were just talking about levels here (btw. most of the world ie. china etc. doesn't believe in human rights as the western world sees them.) the first example also had a measurable effect even if its smaller. The logic there is slightly flawed in that for something to have an effect does not mean it must exist. For example Firmament does not exist but it was for a long time the basis of the wave propagation of light theory and had a large effect on the world (or at least the scientific one at that point). There is also no planet I know of that has a sun rotating around it yet that was the belief for a long time. Witches do not exist yet the witch hunts had A very measurable effect on the world. There is a difference between belief and reality.

3) If something is outside the scope of science to even predict something anything about it despite numerous tests I would suggest that that makes its existence HIGHLY unlikely. If god being outside the scope of science, fine then treat god like A belief. A belief that must be questioned. Why, for example does (a christen god in this case and here im generalizing . . .) god want you to hate people who are gay. Why does this belief demand that you not question it. why does this belief exclude the beliefs of others? why does this belief demand that you believe things that are patently untrue such as the lack of existence of Evolution? Personally any belief that forces those things on you is not a belief I want any part of.

What we refer to as an 'electron' is the geographical area of maximum probability of charge equal (but opposite) to the charge of a proton.

It isn't a tangible 'shape', at all.
not true. You just defined an orbital. (an orbital is the area of space in which it is most likely to find an electron at any given time. and it is represented by a number of shapes based on hybridization and a number of other really painful and annoying topics lol)

not true. You just defined an orbital. (an orbital is the area of space in which it is most likely to find an electron at any given time. and it is represented by a number of shapes based on hybridization and a number of other really painful and annoying topics lol)

Leave it to an obvious Satanist like you to bring up sp3 and its godless tendency to alleviate stearic strain by geometrically maximizing bond angles in organic chemicals.

Hope that tetrehedral methane keeps you good company in hell, jerk.

Leave it to an obvious Satanist like you to bring up sp3 and its godless tendency to alleviate stearic strain by geometrically maximizing bond angles in organic chemicals.

Hope that tetrehedral methane keeps you good company in hell, jerk.

Dude.

Where.

Is.

My.

Czar.

Dude.

Where.

Is.

My.

Czar.

Czar is just a cyrillic bastardization of the word Caesar, who was just another pagan fuckwad who didn't realize that Jesus is the only answer.

Its also a great salad invented in Tijuana Mexico where I am frequently forcibly ejected from whorehouses for refusing to pay on the grounds that Jesus is the only answer.

Leave it to an obvious Satanist like you to bring up sp3 and its godless tendency to alleviate stearic strain by geometrically maximizing bond angles in organic chemicals.

Hope that tetrehedral methane keeps you good company in hell, jerk.

lol im sorry so so sorry lmao

not true. You just defined an orbital. (an orbital is the area of space in which it is most likely to find an electron at any given time. and it is represented by a number of shapes based on hybridization and a number of other really painful and annoying topics lol)

It also defines, specifically, 'an electron' within that orbital. Look it up.

An orbital provides the 'geography' in which we are looking for one or more discrete probabilities. Those probable centres are our 'electrons'.

1)true but electrons are not subatmoic. anyway you could be right I have no actual way of proving that and that level of quantum mechanics is outta my range.

Are you for real? On the one hand, you seem to have a decent knowledge of some physics, but you seem to be...whatever.

An electron is a subatomic particle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron).

2)Now were just talking about levels here (btw. most of the world ie. china etc. doesn't believe in human rights as the western world sees them.) the first example also had a measurable effect even if its smaller. The logic there is slightly flawed in that for something to have an effect does not mean it must exist. For example Firmament does not exist but it was for a long time the basis of the wave propagation of light theory and had a large effect on the world (or at least the scientific one at that point). There is also no planet I know of that has a sun rotating around it yet that was the belief for a long time. Witches do not exist yet the witch hunts had A very measurable effect on the world. There is a difference between belief and reality.

Please note: a belief in democracy is not the same as democracy itself. You are discussing beliefs. I am discussing social systems. They are two different things.

Another difference between a schizophrenic delusion and a concept such as patriarchy or democracy is that the delusion only needs to exist in the mind of one person, while a social system like democracy or patriarchy needs two people or more. Now, when two or more people perpetuate a social system, that system or concept can be considered as being objectively, or at least intersubjectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiabilit),
verifiable.

3) If something is outside the scope of science to even predict something anything about it despite numerous tests I would suggest that that makes its existence HIGHLY unlikely.

Not quite. I am claiming that science, due to its nature, cannot reasonably test for god.

If god being outside the scope of science, fine then treat god like A belief. A belief that must be questioned.

Did I ever give the impression that I treated a belief in god as something other than it is?

Why, for example does (a christen god in this case and here im generalizing . . .) god want you to hate people who are gay.

The belief that the Christian god wants you to hate homosexuals is based on an interpretation of the Bible, as well as other factors. The vast majority of Christians do not share this specific belief, though many Christian denominations espouse homophobic beliefs to a degree. In other words, some people say that God wants that, while others say that God doesn't want that.

Why does this belief demand that you not question it.

A belief cannot demand anything. Only a person or community can.

All communities have a conservative streak that puts pressure on the individuals to not ask too many questions outside of an accepted range. Often, this can be further entrenched by powerful clergy who wish to control the debate and thereby exercise power over the community.

why does this belief exclude the beliefs of others?

Some beliefs exclude other beliefs. Some do not. For example, if you believe god wants you to hate gays, you can't go really go around believing in universal love. That would be a contradiction. But you could still believe that god wanted you to hate women and black people too. Those beliefs would be consistent with your example that god wants you to hate gay people.

why does this belief demand that you believe things that are patently untrue such as the lack of existence of Evolution?

Most Christians believe in evolution. I understand that you may feel that this is not the case if you live in the USA, but trust me on this. Therefore, we can safely say that Christianity does not demand that you give up a belief in evolution. Now, if you believe that every word of Genesis is literally true, then that would contradict a belief in evolution, as I explained above. Most Christians get around that by assuming that Genesis is not literally true in every word.

Personally any belief that forces those things on you is not a belief I want any part of.

Well, then it's a good thing that we learnt that beliefs can't force things on you. Only people can.

Are you for real? On the one hand, you seem to have a decent knowledge of some physics, but you seem to be...whatever.

An electron is a subatomic particle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron).


Read his/her post with greater care, GoG. He/she didn't say it wasn't sub-atomic, he/she said it wasn't subatmoic. That is actually true.

An atmoic particle, the first mathematically consistent models of which were developed at Argonne National Laboratory by Dr. Moishe Himmler and his research hunchback Ognjen Kuntzler, is essentially characterized as displaying both anisotropic degeneration under 2,500 kev of x-ray dryhumping while still behaving normally under polarized light.

Since electrons by themselves lack an identifiable lattice structure that could even demonstrate this characteristic of diffraction, they are, quite obviously, NOT subatmoic.

Read his/her post with greater care, GoG. He/she didn't say it wasn't sub-atomic, he/she said it wasn't subatmoic. That is actually true.

An atmoic particle, the first mathematically consistent models of which were developed at Argonne National Laboratory by Dr. Moishe Himmler and his research hunchback Ognjen Kuntzler, is essentially characterized as displaying both anisotropic degeneration under 2,500 kev of x-ray dryhumping while still behaving normally under polarized light.

Since electrons by themselves lack an identifiable lattice structure that could even demonstrate this characteristic of diffraction, they are, quite obviously, NOT subatmoic.
1)right my bad sorry I meant its not on the same level as quarks etc. again my bad (D'oh) lol as to the ab ove post. Love it lmao
2) as to the second part I disagree. I would say that Democracy is infact a belief in and of itself. plus democracy is in no way objective. ask two people and they will give you two similar but different definitions (unless they both happen to work for the oxford english dictionary).
3)So then your claiming god doesn't physically exist???? cause he/she must not exist physically in any sense if he/she is not within the realm of science (which, I would argue, is the realm of all things physical.). So are you saying god is, in fact, ust a belief and only exists in hat sense.
4)nope that was aimed at the general public lol. Yes but here your splitting hairs. I was listing things that the bible (and thus the belief in the bible). And now your arguing both ways. A belief can easily demand something. Ie. to believe in creationism means you cannot believe in Evolution (or at the very least in parts of evolution). thus that belief demands that you not believe in something else (demand=metaphorical). As to that point about creationism . . . fair enough (actually im in Canada though) though if yu dont take the entire bible litterally what do you take to be litteral truth and why? as to the last part. Thats frankly bull. Beliefs are the root of every action good or evil. A belief that the church is always right caused the inquistion to be as brutal as they were. If all actions were based on other people no one would ever do anything . . . .

I'm not one to use the fluffle lightly, so recieve this fluffle with back pain and whatever else comes with it.

:fluffle:
Ya know, a little while back someone made note of all the bowing i do ... perhaps i'm past the back pain part. :confused:

1)right my bad sorry I meant its not on the same level as quarks etc. again my bad (D'oh) lol as to the ab ove post. Love it lmao
2) as to the second part I disagree. I would say that Democracy is infact a belief in and of itself. plus democracy is in no way objective. ask two people and they will give you two similar but different definitions (unless they both happen to work for the oxford english dictionary).
3)So then your claiming god doesn't physically exist???? cause he/she must not exist physically in any sense if he/she is not within the realm of science (which, I would argue, is the realm of all things physical.). So are you saying god is, in fact, ust a belief and only exists in hat sense.
4)nope that was aimed at the general public lol. Yes but here your splitting hairs. I was listing things that the bible (and thus the belief in the bible). And now your arguing both ways. A belief can easily demand something. Ie. to believe in creationism means you cannot believe in Evolution (or at the very least in parts of evolution). thus that belief demands that you not believe in something else (demand=metaphorical). As to that point about creationism . . . fair enough (actually im in Canada though) though if yu dont take the entire bible litterally what do you take to be litteral truth and why? as to the last part. Thats frankly bull. Beliefs are the root of every action good or evil. A belief that the church is always right caused the inquistion to be as brutal as they were. If all actions were based on other people no one would ever do anything . . . .

If there wasn't Religion, we'd find other excuses to be assholes. That's one of humanity's strengths. I'd give us about 10 minutes before we had another idea.

If there wasn't Religion, we'd find other excuses to be assholes. That's one of humanity's strengths. I'd give us about 10 minutes before we had another idea.

Meh, why wait for an excuse?

Meh, why wait for an excuse?

What're you? Some kinda savage?

What're you? Some kinda savage?

Need you ask?

Me? I'm an athiest... but I can see the rationale and justification for religion.

To quote Death from Hogfather "Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy."... "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"

If religious faith helps people to believe in greater truths - but essentially human constructs - such as love, mercy or justice, then go for it.

Me? I'm an athiest... but I can see the rationale and justification for religion.

To quote Death from Hogfather "Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy."... "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"

If religious faith helps people to believe in greater truths - but essentially human constructs - such as love, mercy or justice, then go for it.But why pursue something thus insubstantial? Is delusion really a state of mind one should go for?

But why pursue something thus insubstantial? Is delusion really a state of mind one should go for?

Sure why not, after all we all do it.

But why pursue something thus insubstantial? Is delusion really a state of mind one should go for?

Wouldn't 'love', 'mercy' and 'justice' be equally insubstantial?

Wouldn't 'love', 'mercy' and 'justice' be equally insubstantial?

Justice is not in the same league as those two.

2) as to the second part I disagree. I would say that Democracy is infact a belief in and of itself. plus democracy is in no way objective. ask two people and they will give you two similar but different definitions (unless they both happen to work for the oxford english dictionary).

Can you please define the word 'belief' for me? I would like to know how you are using it. You seem to be using it to mean anything that does not have a physical existence. Would you say the theory of evolution is a belief? It also has no physical existence.

3)So then your claiming god doesn't physically exist? Because he/she must not exist physically in any sense if he/she is not within the realm of science (which, I would argue, is the realm of all things physical). So are you saying god is, in fact, just a belief and only exists in that sense?

See, you did it again. You assumed that if god does not have a physical existence, then god must exist solely as a belief.

I was listing things that the bible (and thus the belief in the bible).

I am having some trouble figuring out this sentence fragment. I assume that you are saying that because verses supporting your interpretation can be found in the Bible, everyone who believes that the Bible is a holy scripture must then believe this interpretation.

This is obviously not true. If this were the case, all Christian denominations would have the same beliefs as they are all based on the same scripture, the Holy Bible. But all Christian denominations do not share the same beliefs.

A belief can easily demand something. Ie. to believe in creationism means you cannot believe in Evolution (or at the very least in parts of evolution). thus that belief demands that you not believe in something else (demand=metaphorical).

Not quite. The religious person or community demands an internal logic to the belief system, and this is what causes people to put together a belief system that is coherent. In other words, the demands comes from people's expectations, not the beliefs themselves.

If you dont take the entire Bible literally what do you take to be literal truth and why?

Different denominations approach that question differently. This link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm) is a good introduction to the discussion.

as to the last part. Thats frankly bull. Beliefs are the root of every action good or evil. A belief that the church is always right caused the inquistion to be as brutal as they were. If all actions were based on other people no one would ever do anything...

Upthread, you claimed that since beliefs do not have physical existence, they do not exist. yet here you claim that they are directly responsible for every human action. If they do not exist, as you claim, how do they force people to do things, as you claim? This is a logical inconsistency of yours.

But why pursue something thus insubstantial? Is delusion really a state of mind one should go for?

Please show me a piece of 'freedom from religious thought'. It can be in solid, liquid, gas, plasma, or energy form, I don't care. I just want to see a physical manifestation of 'freedom from religious thought'. If you can not provide an example, we can safely assume that it is insubstantial. If this is the case, why should we believe it exists? Why should we pursue 'freedom from religious thought'? Because, as you claim, 'freedom from religious thought' is merely a delusion.

If there wasn't Religion, we'd find other excuses to be assholes. That's one of humanity's strengths. I'd give us about 10 minutes before we had another idea.

lol not even 10 . . . .3 maybe?

Justice is not in the same league as those two.
You're damned right. Damned right! Too much pain erupts out of a warped sense of Justice, or Right and Wrong. Mercy, Peace and Love all the way.

If there wasn't Religion, we'd find other excuses to be assholes. That's one of humanity's strengths. I'd give us about 10 minutes before we had another idea.

We already did. It's called Marxism. It's the opiate of the elitists who think they know what's best for everyone else.

lol not even 10 . . . .3 maybe?

That's like: Going from 0 to total bitch in .5 seconds.:D I like that saying.

Can you please define the word 'belief' for me? I would like to know how you are using it. You seem to be using it to mean anything that does not have a physical existence. Would you say the theory of evolution is a belief? It also has no physical existence.



See, you did it again. You assumed that if god does not have a physical existence, then god must exist solely as a belief.



I am having some trouble figuring out this sentence fragment. I assume that you are saying that because verses supporting your interpretation can be found in the Bible, everyone who believes that the Bible is a holy scripture must then believe this interpretation.

This is obviously not true. If this were the case, all Christian denominations would have the same beliefs as they are all based on the same scripture, the Holy Bible. But all Christian denominations do not share the same beliefs.



Not quite. The religious person or community demands an internal logic to the belief system, and this is what causes people to put together a belief system that is coherent. In other words, the demands comes from people's expectations, not the beliefs themselves.



Different denominations approach that question differently. This link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm) is a good introduction to the discussion.



Upthread, you claimed that since beliefs do not have physical existence, they do not exist. yet here you claim that they are directly responsible for every human action. If they do not exist, as you claim, how do they force people to do things, as you claim? This is a logical inconsistency of yours.



Please show me a piece of 'freedom from religious thought'. It can be in solid, liquid, gas, plasma, or energy form, I don't care. I just want to see a physical manifestation of 'freedom from religious thought'. If you can not provide an example, we can safely assume that it is insubstantial. If this is the case, why should we believe it exists? Why should we pursue 'freedom from religious thought'? Because, as you claim, 'freedom from religious thought' is merely a delusion.

1) for me a belief is anything without a physical manifestation that affects oneself.

2)yep :)
3) argh sorry. really tired last night. my sentence structure is poor at the best of times and worse when im tired. And no im pretty sure thats not what i was trying to say . . . .I think it was along the lines that if you take some of the bible as literal truth you should take it all as literal truth. Of course most people don't (im not sure if anyone does) but i think thats what I was trying to say.
4) ok that was a poor example but the point stands. We base most of our actions on our beliefs (or at least I'd like to think we do). Thats one of the problems I have with religion. It (the community) forces you to believe in something you may or may not believe in otherwise (including parts of the bible). But most beliefs cause a disbelief in something else (ie. my belief that the world was not created forces me to believe that it somehow came about as part of a natural process or simpler. My belief that food is good makes me disbelieve that anorexia is the way to go).
5) interesting link but who choses???

6)nope I never claimed that something that does not exist physically could not affect someone. I believe it can and does and seeing as how were talking about god here don't you have to believe the same thing? Beliefs shape the way that everyone sees the world in one way or another.

7) Oh good i didn't say that lol. Um in answer I guess I'd say that you should pursue the things that make you more open minded and in many (NOT ALL) cases that means a disbelief in religion. On the other hand I'm sure many many people would disagree. (actually I think participating in these kinda debates makes both sides more open minded as you see, even if you reject, both sides of the argument and must do reaserch etc. to back up your beliefs.).

But why pursue something thus insubstantial? Is delusion really a state of mind one should go for?

It's been said that a parent's delusions about the cuteness/goodness/uniqueness/etc. of their child is what keeps them from drowning them at birth.

It's been said that a parent's delusions about the cuteness/goodness/uniqueness/etc. of their child is what keeps them from drowning them at birth.

That's exactly what my parents told the judge.

That's exactly what my parents told the judge.

lmao love it

It also defines, specifically, 'an electron' within that orbital. Look it up.

An orbital provides the 'geography' in which we are looking for one or more discrete probabilities. Those probable centres are our 'electrons'.

yes but they are the probabilities of a physical entity existing at that place at a give time. we just can actually tell where it is without changing where it is (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.)

yes but they are the probabilities of a physical entity existing at that place at a give time. we just can actually tell where it is without changing where it is (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.)

That's why the term 'orbit' for electrons is deprecated and not really used anymore. Physicists today typically speak of 'electron clouds', which are basically probablility maps of where the electron may be at any given point in time.

One can know the speed *or* the position of a subatomic particle. The more precise one gets with the former, the less precise the latter and vice versa.

That's why the term 'orbit' for electrons is deprecated and not really used anymore. Physicists today typically speak of 'electron clouds', which are basically probablility maps of where the electron may be at any given point in time.

One can know the speed *or* the position of a subatomic particle. The more precise one gets with the former, the less precise the latter and vice versa.

Curse the scientists for those damned electron maps! They gave me quite a headache at school.:mad:

J/K!

for me a belief is anything without a physical manifestation that affects oneself.
Then what do you mean by ‘physical manifestation’?

In one interpretation of the above, gravity would count as a belief.

Then what do you mean by ‘physical manifestation’?

In one interpretation of the above, gravity would count as a belief.

Gravity has very clear physical manifestations. If you don't believe me then step outside a second floor window.

Then what do you mean by ‘physical manifestation’?

In one interpretation of the above, gravity would count as a belief.
not true gravity is a property of something physical and thus has a physical manifestation as does energy or light

Gravity has very clear physical manifestations. If you don’t believe me then step outside a second floor window.
That’s exactly why I asked DaWoad to define ‘physical manifestations’. I’m wondering if he means anything which can have a physical effect, be that a physical object or a force such as gravity or magnetism, or merely corporeal objects.

Ahhh:

not true gravity is a property of something physical and thus has a physical manifestation as does energy or light
You meant the former.

Well in that case, those who argue for a god or gods existence could say that their deity is more than a belief, that it is a force in the same manner as gravity or light; albeit a much more powerful force.

That’s exactly why I asked DaWoad to define ‘physical manifestations’. I’m wondering if he means anything which can have a physical effect, be that a physical object or a force such as gravity or magnetism, or merely corporeal objects.

Ahhh:


You meant the former.

Well in that case, those who argue for a god or gods existence could say that their deity is more than a belief, that it is a force in the same manner as gravity or light; albeit a much more powerful force.

no because god would have to be the force of something that exists in our world. which he is not

no because god would have to be the force of something that exists in our world. which he is not

You cannot prove that anymore than the other side of the debate can prove the existence of God. You are also speaking from faith, only your faith is in atheism.

I'm not judging nor arguing either side. I am just pointing out that your logic is fatally flawed.

no because god would have to be the force of something that exists in our world. which he is not
How do you know this?

On the one hand, we have an invisible force, which can only be detected by its effects and cannot be pointed to as an object in the physical universe. We call it gravity.

On the other, some claim that there exists an invisible force, which can only be detected by its effects and cannot be pointed to as an object in the physical universe. They call it their god or gods.

Why is the second not acceptable?

How do you know this?

On the one hand, we have an invisible force, which can only be detected by its effects and cannot be pointed to as an object in the physical universe. We call it gravity.

On the other, some claim that there exists an invisible force, which can only be detected by its effects and cannot be pointed to as an object in the physical universe. They call it their god or gods.

Why is the second not acceptable?

Maybe, just maybe, because to prove the latter is more difficult than talking about gravity and science.

Maybe, just maybe, because to prove the latter is more difficult than talking about gravity and science.
Sure, and I have yet to see proof of it.

But to dismiss the possibility out of hand seems flawed at some level.

Sure, and I have yet to see proof of it.

But to dismiss the possibility out of hand seems flawed at some level.

I know, but some people keep doing it. Not to be sure might cause them distress. Therefore science gives them ´solace´. I guess that not knowing for sure´s half the fun.

I know, but some people keep doing it. Not to be sure might cause them distress. Therefore science gives them ´solace´. I guess that not knowing for sure´s half the fun.

Science knows very few things for sure as well. At one point science 'knew' that the Earth was the center of the Universe. At another point science 'knew' that atoms were indivisible units. You get my point.

Again, I'm not really arguing the for or against, because it's futile really to argue matters of faith. I am just pointing out that science doesn't really 'know' a whole lot. Much of it is conjecture even at this stage.

edit: And I say this as someone who enjoys and engages in science on a regular basis, not as any kind of denier.

Science evolves. Religion evolves. They both try to find some connection with one another because many scientists are also religious, just as many religious believe greatly in the science upon which we shape our world.

I wouldn't be all that surprised one day to find science and religion intermingling as it once did, mainly because of their inherent human connection.

I wouldn’t be all that surprised one day to find science and religion intermingling as it once did, mainly because of their inherent human connection.
When was that? Apart from astrology, I can’t think of any great pairings of the two.

Sure, many religious people have been scientists of one kind or another, but when has religion and science gone hand-in-hand?

Science knows very few things for sure as well. At one point science 'knew' that the Earth was the center of the Universe. At another point science 'knew' that atoms were indivisible units. You get my point.

Again, I'm not really arguing the for or against, because it's futile really to argue matters of faith. I am just pointing out that science doesn't really 'know' a whole lot. Much of it is conjecture even at this stage.

edit: And I say this as someone who enjoys and engages in science on a regular basis, not as any kind of denier.

I get your point, no worries there. I was just stating the reason why I think some people take refuge in science and deny the existence of God with vehemence. Perhaps because it seems to be giving them the answers that faith alone can´t, or they believe it can´t.

To them, regardless of how little it really knows, science is palpable, attainable and therefore, believable and able to explain. It gives them solace, so to speak.

When was that? Apart from astrology, I can’t think of any great pairings of the two.

Sure, many religious people have been scientists of one kind or another, but when has religion and science gone hand-in-hand?


Actually there are quite a few scientists who see spirituality in science. Read The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters for just two citations.

Science knows very few things for sure as well. At one point science 'knew' that the Earth was the center of the Universe. At another point science 'knew' that atoms were indivisible units. You get my point.
However, the difference with science is that it is a progression of knowledge. Science goes one step at a time, with humankind acquiring more and more knowledge about the world around it step by step. There are mistakes, sure, but that's how you learn. The biggest difference is that science requires rational thought process. Sure, we may have thought that atoms were once indivisible units, but we have the ability to correct ourselves through rationality and reason. Science says: "We believe this, and this is why"--even if it turns out later that it is wrong. There's always a (RATIONAL) reason as to why we believe one thing or another. Such a statement cannot be applied to religion.

Actually there are quite a few scientists who see spirituality in science. Read The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters for just two citations.
Hmmm...

I’ve heard of both these books, and my understanding of them and this sort of ‘quantum mysticism’ is that the links between the two are pretty tenuous, if not purely down to linguistic similarities. Robert Anton-Wilson, Terrence McKenna and others use(d) similar claimed links in their works; links that I find unsatisfying and confused.

Hmmm...

I’ve heard of both these books, and my understanding of them and this sort of ‘quantum mysticism’ is that the links between the two are pretty tenuous, if not purely down to linguistic similarities.

I wasn't commenting on the content, just the fact that some scientists see connections between spirituality and science. Having studied cosmology and quantum mechanics myself I can't say that I haven't had the same feeling at times.

EDIT: Good reads, both of them, by the way. Interesting whether one agrees with the premise or not.

I wasn’t commenting on the content, just the fact that some scientists see connections between spirituality and science.
I take your point. But the idea of Acrela’s that science and religion once had an age of unity seems exaggerated.

Having studied cosmology and quantum mechanics myself I can’t say that I haven’t had the same feeling at times.
I suppose there is that sense of awe and wonder when one appreciates certain scientific enquiries, especially cosmology. At a push, you could describe that sense as ‘spiritual’, but I think that misleads.

EDIT: Good reads, both of them, by the way. Interesting whether one agrees with the premise or not.
I might have a wee peek at them when I haven’t got hunners of philosophy texts to read for my exams. :p

I think what awes me the most about science, especially cosmology, is that we probably never *will* know everything. Every time we take a layer off the onion we find another.

when has religion and science gone hand-in-hand?

i have this great mental image of a john frum/cargo cult religious movement based on ritualized lab technique motions and building particle accelerator-shaped monuments. whole congregations titrating in unison, bowing their heads over bamboo 'microscopes' in prayer, shamans entering 'data' into a 'computer' to appease the science and convince the trickster-engineers to bring them technology.

The very first scientists were also the very first priests/shaman/witchdoctors as well. The two disciplines started to diverge sometime after the founding of the first agrarian societies and cities. That divergence really didn't go far until the late Hellenistic era.

EDIT: I would also add that both disciplines involve searching for truth. They just take different approaches, and I'm not sure that either have hit the mark just yet.

The very first scientists were also the very first priests/shaman/witchdoctors as well. The two disciplines started to diverge sometime after the founding of the first agrarian societies and cities. That divergence really didn't go far until the late Hellenistic era.

this seems to misconstrue the nature of science

this seems to misconstrue the nature of science

Not at all. The very first 'scientists' questioned nature and found answers slowly but surely. It has taken us tens of thousands of years of trial and error to get to where we are. You're lack of historical perspective is indicative of the general hubris of modern man.

They even used a sort of scientific method. They formed hypotheses and tested them through trial and error.

Are you saying that the first person to invent the wheel wasn't an enginner then because he was 'primitive'? Or the first person to discover that certain herbs had medicinal value was not an early scientist or doctor?

We have built what we have on the work of every generation before us, from the very dim mists of prehistory to now.

Get some perspective :)

Not at all. The very first 'scientists' questioned nature and found answers slowly but surely. It has taken us tens of thousands of years of trial and error to get to where we are. You're lack of historical perspective is indicative of the general hubris of modern man.

They even used a sort of scientific method. They formed hypotheses and tested them through trial and error.

Are you saying that the first person to invent the wheel wasn't an enginner then because he was 'primitive'? Or the first person to discover that certain herbs had medicinal value was not an early scientist or doctor?

We have built what we have on the work of every generation before us, from the very dim mists of prehistory to now.

Get some perspective :)

yeah, you'll be hard pressed to come up with many people with a more sympathetic reading of pre-agricultural societies than me. but mere trial and error inductive reasoning does not science make.

yeah, you'll be hard pressed to come up with many people with a more sympathetic reading of pre-agricultural societies than me. but mere trial and error inductive reasoning does not science make.

It is what science was born of. It was a gradual evolution. Again, your hubris is showing ;)

It is what science was born of. It was a gradual evolution.

granting that, it follows that at best they were proto-scientists. fair enough. still not science, in the same way that australopithicines aren't homo sapiens.

granting that, it follows that at best they were proto-scientists. fair enough. still not science, in the same way that australopithicines aren't homo sapiens.

And it is also quite possible that scientists 1000 years from now will say the same of us.

And it is also quite possible that scientists 1000 years from now will say the same of us.

barring some serious changes to the basic methodology and institutions, it seems doubtful. at least not in the same sense i am using. its not a question of the specifics of our theories, or the instruments we use - these will of course change. what matters is the set of institutions and beliefs that allow science to exist at all.

You cannot prove that anymore than the other side of the debate can prove the existence of God. You are also speaking from faith, only your faith is in atheism.

I'm not judging nor arguing either side. I am just pointing out that your logic is fatally flawed.
wha??? no there is no physical manifestation to which a force known as god could be attributed? anyone wanna prove otherwise. Cause Im pretty sure nonoe has ever claimed that god was merely an attribute of something else. For one thing it would have to act proportionally to everyone and it would have to have a similar effect on everyone (this is the god force)
And what was that second part???? my faith is in atheism??? no its not. firstly I'm agnostic . . .strongly strongly agnostic. Secondly my faith is in science

How do you know this?

On the one hand, we have an invisible force, which can only be detected by its effects and cannot be pointed to as an object in the physical universe. We call it gravity.

On the other, some claim that there exists an invisible force, which can only be detected by its effects and cannot be pointed to as an object in the physical universe. They call it their god or gods.

Why is the second not acceptable?

1) wrong gravity is attributed to mass which is attributed to density and size.

I know, but some people keep doing it. Not to be sure might cause them distress. Therefore science gives them ´solace´. I guess that not knowing for sure´s half the fun.

nope like I said im agnostic I don't believe that one can ever entirely disprove the existence of god. Its just incredably unlikely that he/she exists.

Science evolves. Religion evolves. They both try to find some connection with one another because many scientists are also religious, just as many religious believe greatly in the science upon which we shape our world.

I wouldn't be all that surprised one day to find science and religion intermingling as it once did, mainly because of their inherent human connection.
Thats the thing though. rligion attempts to stop its evolution as much as possible where as science Wants to evolve

Science evolves. Religion evolves. They both try to find some connection with one another because many scientists are also religious, just as many religious believe greatly in the science upon which we shape our world.

I wouldn't be all that surprised one day to find science and religion intermingling as it once did, mainly because of their inherent human connection.

I doubt it that whole intermingling thing didnt work out so hot once science diverged from religion on some topics

1) wrong gravity is attributed to mass which is attributed to density and size.

What, I might ask, about mass makes gravity function? By what method does this force function?

What, I might ask, about mass makes gravity function? By what method does this force function?

How does that relate? were not arguing about how god functions that would assume the existence of god as a premise. Secondly I have no idea its not my field. We do on the other hand know the gravity is attributed to mass (um and i believe there was something about how mass creates gravity discusesed recently in some major forum but I can't for the life of me remember what or where it was.

When was that? Apart from astrology, I can’t think of any great pairings of the two.
Even 2nd Century astronomy, though, in its basic form, would not have qualified as 'science' by today's standards. The times when the plotting of the planets represented both astrology and astronomy as one are long gone.

Sure, many religious people have been scientists of one kind or another, but when has religion and science gone hand-in-hand?
Have you perchance read the philosophy of Austrian-Irish physicist Erwin Schrödinger? Cat in a Box, that sort of thing. I recommend it.

You're lack of historical perspective is indicative of the general hubris of modern man.
Your presumptuousness is also indicative of it. ;)

Wow, just wow. This thread is still alive. I'd have thought it would have died a natural death by now.

What, I might ask, about mass makes gravity function? By what method does this force function?Well, you might want to learn about the basics of physics first.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:I-6efk3voQhQdM:http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~heroux/images/Particle_chart.jpg (http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~heroux/images/Particle_chart.jpg)

Wouldn't 'love', 'mercy' and 'justice' be equally insubstantial?They are. They are only patterns of human thought and behavior, just as is belief in god. The world works without human mercy or love or god.

wrong gravity is attributed to mass which is attributed to density and size.
It’s my understanding that in current the above is incorrect; gravity isn’t attributed to mass, it’s attributed to, or at least ‘used’ by, the graviton, a hypothetical, massless, particle.

Have you perchance read the philosophy of Austrian-Irish physicist Erwin Schrödinger? Cat in a Box, that sort of thing. I recommend it.
Schrödinger’s thoughts on quantum mechanics and his interest and musings upon certain Hindu philosophy hardly constitutes a massive pairing of science and religion.

They are. They are only patterns of human thought and behavior, just as is belief in god. The world works without human mercy or love or god.
Which forces you into the strange position (at least, a strange position for one who has "There Is No Biblical God" plastered on their sig) of saying that God is as real as love. If you accept that humans can experience love, how can you deny that humans can experience God?

Schrödinger’s thoughts on quantum mechanics and his interest and musings upon certain Hindu philosophy hardly constitutes a massive pairing of science and religion.

You should read Ian Barbour's book Religion and Science (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Science-Gifford-Lectures-Barbour/dp/0060609389). The guy is a physicist and a theologian, with a very strong background in philosophy and history. Consequently, he is very rigourous in his thinking. The book is a comprehensive synthesis of a long series of lectures he gave to grad students entitled 'Religion in the Age of Science', and you can tell that hese lectures were not written for laypeople. A certain level of knowledge is required.

It’s my understanding that in current the above is incorrect; gravity isn’t attributed to mass, it’s attributed to, or at least ‘used’ by, the graviton, a hypothetical, massless, particle.



That is not quite correct. IF the graviton exists (currently still a very big IF) then it is generated by some as yet unknown mechanism that is directly correlated to the presence of mass. Gravity is and always will be attributed to the presence of mass.

That is not quite correct. IF the graviton exists (currently still a very big IF) then it is generated by some as yet unknown mechanism that is directly correlated to the presence of mass. Gravity is and always will be attributed to the presence of mass.

Bullshit, go take a physics class.

EVERY observable instance of the effect described as gravity is mass indepedent.

That's why the formula has a gravitational constant, some other figures that I forget what they refer to, and the distance squared between the center of something or other.

(read the last line carefully)

Bullshit, go take a physics class.

EVERY observable instance of the effect described as gravity is mass indepedent.

That's why the formula has a gravitational constant, some other figures that I forget what they refer to, and the distance squared between the center of something or other.

I've probably taken far more than you have. I was not speaking of the effect of gravity. I was speaking of the presence of gravity.

That is not quite correct. IF the graviton exists (currently still a very big IF) then it is generated by some as yet unknown mechanism that is directly correlated to the presence of mass. Gravity is and always will be attributed to the presence of mass.
Yeah, the presence of mass, but not mass itself. I’m not too sure on the details, but I think that to say ‘mass is the cause of gravity’ is incorrect.

Are there any physicists in the house?

Yeah, the presence of mass, but not mass itself. I’m not too sure on the details, but I think that to say ‘mass is the cause of gravity’ is incorrect.

Are there any physicists in the house?

We do not KNOW what actually makes gravity work. It might be the graviton (in fact some string theory models implicity require the graviton to exist) or it might be something entirely different. All we know for certain is it correlates to the presence of mass.

I've probably taken far more than you have. I was not speaking of the effect of gravity. I was speaking of the presence of gravity.

I doubt it, as I am published in physics having been invited to multiple national labs to study and experiment.

If you reread my initial post, you'll understand better.

Yeah, the presence of mass, but not mass itself. I’m not too sure on the details, but I think that to say ‘mass is the cause of gravity’ is incorrect.

Are there any physicists in the house?

Gravity is a field, pervasive in the universe, whose field shape associates directly with the location of mass.

If one wants to say mass "causes" gravity, its just as reasonable as saying that an accelerating charge "causes" a magnetic field.

But you will not likely find gravity without mass.

We do not KNOW what actually makes gravity work. It might be the graviton (in fact some string theory models implicity require the graviton to exist) or it might be something entirely different. All we know for certain is it correlates to the presence of mass.

Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?

EDIT: Gee, wonder what those other things could be?

If you accept that humans can experience love, how can you deny that humans can experience God?What does love have to do with a god?

Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

:rolleyes:

What does love have to do with a god?

Both are non-physical. By your statement that nothing exists that is not physical, we can safely conclude that you believe that god and love are both nonexistent.

Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

:rolleyes:

Oh, UB, you don't know how much this makes up for all the times when I got frustrated with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

:rolleyes:

So, then, no, you don't get it.

I'll try again.

"Oh, nonsense.

If that were true, the predictive models for gravity would have terms that reflect mass.

And again, as I recall, the formula is G times some other things I can't remember, divided by the distance squared between some other things.

Get it?

Oh, UB, you don't know how much this makes up for all the times when I got frustrated with you.

Don't tip him off, he still doesn't get it, even after I went back and edited my original post to draw attention to the elements clearly revealing satire.

Don't tip him off, he still doesn't get it, even after I went back and edited my original post to draw attention to the elements clearly revealing satire.

A tiny, petty party of me will always remember this fondly.

You are a wonderful addition to this forum. I look forward to disagreeing with you.

A tiny, petty party of me will always remember this fondly.

You are a wonderful addition to this forum. I look forward to disagreeing with you.

Well, now that I've been totally swayed by that "10 Questions for Christians" stuff from Hatesmanville, you religious types are my mortal enemy!

Mortal!

Well, now that I've been totally swayed by that "10 Questions for Christians" stuff from Hatesmanville, you religious types are my mortal enemy!

Mortal!

He was so unequivocally convincing wasn't he?

Well, now that I've been totally swayed by that "10 Questions for Christians" stuff from Hatesmanville, you religious types are my mortal enemy!

Mortal!

*plays tune of Mortal Kombat, techno version*
It seems to be perfect for this statement.

He was so unequivocally convincing wasn't he?

I still think he was poonin', but I was totally convinced. I was just planning to go get baptized, when his brilliant, original, lucid prose swayed me like Fred Astaire with an inner ear infection.

*plays tune of Mortal Kombat, techno version*
It seems to be perfect for this statement.

I want to be one of the ninja guys, because those big shoulder pads will hide my abysmal physique.

Well, on topic, all you people better quit bashing on religion on NSG or else Stephen Baldwin WILL track your IP address, just like he goes to local porn stores and takes pictures of people's licence plates.

*plays tune of Mortal Kombat, techno version*
It seems to be perfect for this statement.

LOL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcETD8C37nA)

LOL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcETD8C37nA)

LOL!:D

They are. They are only patterns of human thought and behavior, just as is belief in god. The world works without human mercy or love or god.

But they exist. ;)

What does love have to do with a god?
You say that love and god are both “only patterns of human thought and behaviour (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13614244#post13614244)”. If you admit the existence of love, which it would seem rational to do, then you’d have to admit the existence of god, at least at the same sort of ‘level’ of existence as love.

Gravity is a field, pervasive in the universe, whose field shape associates directly with the location of mass.

If one wants to say mass "causes" gravity, its just as reasonable as saying that an accelerating charge "causes" a magnetic field.

But you will not likely find gravity without mass.

could we just go with mass and gravity are related?

You say that love and god are both “only patterns of human thought and behaviour (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13614244#post13614244)”. If you admit the existence of love, which it would seem rational to do, then you’d have to admit the existence of god, at least at the same sort of ‘level’ of existence as love.

nope love is an emotion associated with chemical reactions within the brain whereas god is associated with . . . .um . . . . .something?

nope love is an emotion associated with chemical reactions within the brain whereas god is associated with . . . .um . . . . .something?
Well, I don’t agree with UB’s definitions either.

I want to be one of the ninja guys, because those big shoulder pads will hide my abysmal physique.

Well, on topic, all you people better quit bashing on religion on NSG or else Stephen Baldwin WILL track your IP address, just like he goes to local porn stores and takes pictures of people's licence plates.

oh noes! Alec Baldwin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4yHZcsaERs&feature=related) !!!
oh wait forget that its just Stephen Baldwin (http://www.osutour.org/images/StephenBaldwinheadshot.jpg) thats totally cool lmao

Wow, just wow. This thread is still alive. I'd have thought it would have died a natural death by now.

Curious post, since there's no real natural death involved at all with most religions.

could we just go with mass and gravity are related?

That was my whole point, but UB seemed to miss it.

That was my whole point, but UB seemed to miss it.

Oh well some people just are not as bright as you J. (me for one)

Curious post, since there's no real natural death involved at all with most religions.

Hah, nice.

I don't hate it, I just am against it, as it causes billions of people to believe in things that are not true, which in turn those people teach it to others and so on.

Lying in not always bad, it can't be to prevent an even worse situation, but on such a grand scale, I do not think that it should continue.

Hah, nice.

I've been thinking of all the things i know of that don't seem to die, lingering on in so sickly a fashion. Bad ideas, evangelists, certain republicans, et cetera.
Immortality for all the wrong reasons seems to be the norm. :(

I don't hate religion.

However, conservative elements of religious groups do not endear themselves to humanists like myself very well.

Often, we generalize "conservative elements" to Religion in General, and the result is a toxic secular fascist bigotry called "militant atheism." That's our problem, not yours.

Not. This. Again.:headbang:

[/thread]

Not. This. Again.:headbang:
Look. I really don't hate religion. It's okay. I'm just saying what my fellow nonbelievers don't want to admit.

Look. I really don't hate religion. It's okay. I'm just saying what my fellow nonbelievers don't want to admit.

I wasn´t referring to you. It´s just the the Religion threads are overpowering NSG. That´s all. Hence:

Not. This. Again!

I wasn´t referring to you. It´s just the the Religion threads are overpowering NSG. That´s all. Hence:

Not. This. Again!

When all else fails, General has a default "Lets beat the religion horse some more. It's not dead enough yet" Mode.

You get used to it, and they can be amusing on occasion.

I think it is because of Insanity like this:


MADISON, Wis. - Two children and their mother lived for about two months with the decaying body of a 90-year-old woman on the toilet of their home's only bathroom, on the advice of a religious "superior" who claimed the corpse would come back to life, authorities said Friday.

The children — a 15-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy — cried hysterically Wednesday after a deputy who came to their Necedah home looking for Magdeline Alvina Middlesworth ordered them out because of the stench from her body.

The children were in foster care Friday. Their mother, Tammy Lewis, and self-described "bishop" Alan Bushey remained in custody on felony counts of being a party to causing mental harm to a child.

"It's a sad case, and we'll continue to investigate it and try to ascertain just what occurred up there," Juneau County Sheriff Brent Oleson said. He said he had no further information on Bushey's religious affiliation.

According to the criminal complaint, Middlesworth's sister called sheriff's officials Wednesday and asked them to go to the home about 80 miles north of Madison to check on the woman, who had not been heard from for some time.


Corpse (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_re_us/decaying_corpse)

Stuff like this isn't religion, it'st...words fail me..insanity? manipulation of the crediulous to a criminal degree?

Stuff like this isn't religion, it'st...words fail me..insanity? manipulation of the crediulous to a criminal degree?

You say that as if the two were mutually exclusive.

I don't hate religion.

However, conservative elements of religious groups do not endear themselves to humanists like myself very well.

Often, we generalize "conservative elements" to Religion in General, and the result is a toxic secular fascist bigotry called "militant atheism." That's our problem, not yours.

Fascist? 'Militant' atheism? What are you talking about?

Are these atheists of yours marching through the streets, blowing up churches and demanding a strong anti-Communist government?

Not. This. Again.:headbang:

Here Nan. When you feel like that, use this picture instead:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/marvinohno2jl.jpg

I wasn´t referring to you. It´s just the the Religion threads are overpowering NSG. That´s all. Hence:

Not. This. Again!

It beats "l@@k at me, I iz pretty" threads:)

It beats "l@@k at me, I iz pretty" threads:)

I don't know about that, they both are fun...

I don't know about that, they both are fun...

I don't see why we can't combine the two. :D

I don't see why we can't combine the two. :D

Coming soon to a forum near you...

Who is the sexiest Mormon...

:D

Coming soon to a forum near you...

Who is the sexiest Mormon...

:D

Alternatively we could have mud wrestling competitions in lieu of arguments. ;)

It beats "l@@k at me, I iz pretty" threads:)

Nope. It doesn´t beat those threads. At least, those threads don´t foster arguing about such a sensitive topic as religion is.

Fascist? 'Militant' atheism? What are you talking about?

Are these atheists of yours marching through the streets, blowing up churches and demanding a strong anti-Communist government?

Thank you.

Somebody needs to show these christian fuckwits what militants are. It goes beyond disagreeing with their point of view...