Rockyg can you answer these questions yes or no please. Are thoughts, emotions and actions origins in electrical activity in the brain? When you die and ultimately decompose is there any chance that there could be electrical activity in the brain?
"ask any scientist!" I hold a phD in physics. So you'll have to believe me on that one. Most other scientists will be on my side as well on this, be sure of that. The sentence is absurd. How can a theory which is absent be correct or not? It is absolutely meaningless. Modern science doesn't assume anything about absence of theories. Modern science is all about theories, not their absence All of your next sentences meaningless (sometimes absurd) as well. A big salad of words without any logic. The religious peoples' ultimate weapon. I am very sorry but they show again lack of knowledge in the foundations of science and its scope. In my first post I didn't want to dive into this, as it is not a simple thing for a webmaster forum... but I just say this: The religious view of the world is by definition not a scientific theory. Relating and comparing these two is something you shouldn't do. They live in separate, parallel worlds, which never intersect. Such an intersection would have been devastating for one of them. I guess you know which one. Here is some (VERY) basic and simplified introduction to philosophy of modern science and its religious (anti)parallel: The world of science: Every physical theory comes with an experiment, or a situation, which can negate it. Otherwise, by definition, it is not a scientific theory. The moment new reliable observations pop up which can not coexist with the old theory, we will gladly desert it and look for a complementary, more general, better one. A Theory is meant to be deserted and replaced. A theory always remains a theory. We never dare to call it "truth", even if it was confirmed in thousands of occasions and never contradicted experiment. There are theories for everything. Some are more likely to be closer to the "truth", some are not. "absence of theories" (your post above) doesn't exist. The world of religion: God is eternal. God is unquestionable. God is "truth". The ultimate truth. The belief in God is a precondition. God "talks" to us. He has its own will. You may not dispute its existence. You may not disobey his commandments and will. No experiment and nothing that happens could possibly raise a slight doubt about his existence. New books? for god's sake no. Everybody should memorize the same book. Read it again, and again, and again, and again, and again. And one more thing: There are scientists who are religious. But they are a negligible minority (in the US they are just a minority (not very negligible), as the US is a special case. The reasons are very interesting but that's for another thread....). I tried to think about all the professors who lectured to me in my studies. After a minute of thinking I came up with 1 who was religious. I had certainly more than 100. In my phD time in Europe, non of my colleagues was a religious person, as far as I can remember. Not even a single one. Therefore, there is no "scientific position" and "atheist position". But as a matter of fact: "scientific position" = "atheist position". Scientists are atheists. This thread reminded me of this old good piece of comedy. Islam and Einstein's special relativity : http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php? p=11325862&postcount=5 God bless
I'm sorry, but I find this hilarious, you believe in some magical man in the sky, asking for no proof but you ask Chaos for proof of a PHD, way too funny. And even if he provides it, will it make a difference? Absolutely not!
Roman, just wanted to make a point, and I was waiting for someone like you to prove it for me. Thanks a bunch mr faithful I think Ill call the atheists here the FAITH SQUAD. God bless you all
I'm an areligionist, I think religion is a mega business and a great way to have power and control and even if I were to pick one, odds are I'd get it wrong. Doesn't matter if god exists or not, religions are a bunch of crap.
Granted there are many people that try to abuse religion but to say that religions are crap is unproven . That is your opinion and like I said before you cant make a blanket statement over a whole group or a faith as a whole as my experience with religion has shown me that there are people that have abused their power and there are many many people that have done good within their churches, mosques, temples etc and these were also people high up in church. That is like me saying that all atheists are ignorant and pompous people who respect no one and only have faith in their own beliefs. Is this true? Absolutely not as the friends I have who are atheists who respect all. And about your statement about me believing in some magical man in the sky, I can see your only following Stox's lead. Have you talked to the majority of christians to ask us how we see god? I believe the ignorance of your statement and stox's allready shows the answer. When I proved to stox that order doesnt arise from chaos he then switched over to the where did god come from theory, which conclusively proved to me that stox knows im 100% right about order not arising from chaos. There needs to be a force to make this order happen. Kerry may be a flip flopper but Stox is what we call a dodger and i dont mean draft dodger. Hes very good at evading any question which proves him wrong. It takes an honorable person to say he is incorrect about something. Stox????????
All you do pong is trot out some old tripe that you have heard somewhere else which sounds remotely scientific, assume it applies to the point you are failing to make and then ignore it when someone tears your "argument" a new arsehole. some "christian" you turned out to be, i thought you guys were supposed to have integrity, or are those pages missing from your version of the silly little sky daddy book? I asked you to explain what order you are talking about and what chaos it arose from, and you didn't. your cowardice and lack of comprehension of even your own argument is hardly my fault is it.
I keep bringing it up because you keep evading it stox. Why not answer the darn question for once instead of making excuses????????? Stox your the last person to talk about integrity as you are an expert at spreading hate and disinformation. Remember I never do this. I only answer someone that I see doing this. As I said before , for a person who redicules them you cannot prove one single thing about what you believe in. If you cant prove your beliefs why do you keep putting down others. As I said before thats not an example of a class act. And your right, by answering someone as low as you, I am putting myself on your level. There is little difference between what your doing and what GMAN is doing. IM sure we have people of faith like gandhi and mother theresa (god bless her)
Still refusing to even clarify what the hell it is you are blabbering on about? Keep digging pong, we can still see you. This is what happens when you just parrot rhetoric pong, you find yourself in the unfortunate position of not even understand what you yourself are saying. As for mother Teresa, the poisonous old witch, she made a living from the suffering of children, disgusting filth. watch missionary position to see something other than the "polished turd" we got to see on TV.
Like I said if one show can convince you that she is a witch than you rmore naive and ignorant than I ever imagined. I have met people that have worked with her and their story is completely different as is the story of most of the known world, and most of the world knows her for how she really was, a kind, caring woman who left a well to do family to go out and care for the less fortunate, something you probably dont know much about since most of your devoted time is spent spreading hate and unproven propaganda on the net. And your saying I need a life. Dude you need to let go of your hate and find some love in your life. whatever this person of faith did to you, you can get it solved easily by talking it out or spending time with a shrink. Heck I would even pay for that. All it takes to spread unproven rumors is one author and some sheeple like you to believe it. Have you researched this? Have you gona out to talk to people that have worked with her? My guess is no to all of the above. Your basically just an internet propaganda spreader. Have you ever seen my create a website just to spread hate about someone elses beliefs? Thats right no, and thats what separates us. I can respect the atheistic position as one of my goals is the brotherhood of man, and it seems that one of your goals is the breakuphood of man
Wow, really nice posts I found in this thread. Haven't read all pages, though I would like to just put down what I think about God. If there was a God, who loves kind people, there won't be any evil people. But I see many (if not majority) are evil people. Oh, may be evil is there too, one who is more powerful than God? Our brain at this moment isn't able to realize what created universe. I know big bang was there but as some religious guys ask, what was there before that big bang? Really, you or me don't know. Period. And please, don't use word "Complex". Complexity is relative, not absolute. If I could show complexity of an Intel chip to people living in 17th century, they could go mad or believe that chip was created by God. Period. I wish to read remaining pages of this thread soon... (Good posts Jackuul )
The woman was a publicity obsessed nasty piece of work. In the documentary she gleefully stated "we have raised money to open nunneries in every country", yet she still treated children in some grotty little hovel in a back street of Calcutta where rats roamed freely and the treatment consisted of damp towels and prayer. All them nunneries and not one hospital. She was in the industry of suffering. Children needed to suffer so this filthy piece of shit could make money, received awards and get on TV, and make them suffer she did. She went out of her way to make them suffer. Countless times doctors visited her dimply lit, filthy little shack where rows and rows of children were laid out to die begging her to let them take the kids to hospital where their condition could be easily treated. Good riddance to her, she was scum. Want me to respect that? I don't think so.
Wrong. Very very wrong Once again, you are simply making things up. BTW, it's not called "gravetational theory" (HA!). It's called the Law of Gravity. In simple terms, and this really is as simple as I can do it, laws are what are proven by experimentation and theories are the successful prediction of an event based upon a hypothesis.. So the law of gravity is explained by The Law of Gravity (duh!) and not "gravetational theory". Here, you should read up on the subject at the University of Rochester Physics Department: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html "A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests"
As i said before the book called the missionary position by Christopher Hitchens is a laugher. As explained in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeS0MHl5xTM Bill Donohue correctly states that Christophers book has no citations or evidence of his so called proof. Bill also correctly states that any professor would give this book an F just based on that alone. There is not one shred of evidence listed there for his beliefs. Stox, it seems like you and christopher really share on thing in common, you both like to spread falsehood and hatred with no proof. Stox , if your going to state falsehoods at least follow someone that can give evidence for his beliefs., and by the way your atheist propaganda man that you follow seems to have a biased hatred for people of faith. Sounds like he has faith in his hatred but no evidence to back it up. looooooooooool Corwin, its ok. Its not the first time Stox innacurately pointed something out, but its getting much harder pointing out his falsehoods and errors since they are increasing geometrically with his blind hatred for people of faith.
there is a gravetational law, but the theory explains it. Remember how in our last lecture I told you about the difference? Well reread your notes, or at least do a google search before assuming you know what you are talking about. Laws are what something does, theories explain how and/or why it does it. Want me to draw you a picture? Pong, feel free to respect someone who deliberately caused children to suffer for her own ends, but it frankly makes me sick to my stomach thinking about what that evil old hag got away with, without having to try and understand why some dogmatic Christians, and surprisingly secular people too, would respect this nasty piece of work. Think about it. She raised billions of dollars and financed not a single well equipped childrens hospital. Take off the blinkers.
I reject that utterly. I don't know any scientists (and I know quiet a few) that operate on the premise everything they use must be proven before being adhered to. And I'll take you at face value of you supposed phD, though you certainly don't speak like anyone thats done a phD in physics. I never siad a theory is 'absent' - I said in the absense of a theory being proven . Perhaps you should have taken a phD in english instead? Here's my sentence for you: Modern science simply assumes that in the abence of a theory being proven or disproven, that theory may, or may not be correct. Perhaps you'd like to read over the post before hitting 'reply' in future? Your words again. I never said anything about 'absent' theories. Do you understand the meaning of the words 'in the absense of a theory being proven' ? I really can't break this down any simpler for you. If you get stuck, maybe you should consult some of you 'scientists' on your side. They may be able break it down for you. Absent theories, and absent proof are two entirely different concepts. Still sure of that phD you hold? Coming from somebody rambling on about absent theories, I find it hard take you seriously at all. I've already said religious people base their view on belief. Not scientific fact. Yet you feel the need to reguritate what I said. I said atheism is a belief also without foundation. If you really insist on replying to my posts, at least have the decency to read the thread before hitting reply. Is that you Homer? Simpson? Wow, a few rambling sentances later, and your still on about something I never even disputed. In fact, I was at pains to point it out. Tell me, ever consider an English PHD? It would be money and time well spent for you. But what about that grasp of english you have? Shocking. Yawn. Never disputed any of this. Really, that English phD for you is looking better and better value. Simply your atheist viewpoint. There's nothing there that's new. Now, perhaps after one of the most unrelated posts I've read in a long time, you'd care to post something of relevance? Oh dear god. Is this punishment? And your point is what? That you were lectured by Atheists? So what? What relevance has the belief system of your professors to the thread topic at hand? In your own time now. Are you trying to tell us you're simply spouting up everything they taught you without maybe questioning anything yourself? Who gave you a phD? You're argument seems to revolve around what your professors said! Speaking of scientists I know none, nada, zilch that re-spout what they were taught in college. Invaraibly the process of gaining a phD teaches them to use their own brains and apply their own logic. Science and Atheism are two very distinct fields. Its amateurish of you to attempt to link the two, simply because your lecturers were atheists. Its facile at the very least. There is nothing scientific about athesim in the least. There is not one shred of evidence for an atheist assertion of 'God does not exist', no more than there is a shred of evidence for the religious assertion of 'God does exist' The correct Atheist position is that 'God may or may not exist' -which would be the scientific position to adapt. In other words (dare I repost my original point and risk another meandering post from you straying off topic again? ) Modern science simply assumes that in the abence of a theory being proven or disproven, that theory may, or may not be correct. Only proof positive of either assertion 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' would allow for a true scientific acceptance of either theory. Anything as you've posted above is simply atheism, its most certainly not science. Science deals in facts and operates on the basis of theories. Atheism simply adopts the position that 'you prove God exists first' as a basis for their position. It still stands that Atheism cannot produce one iota of evidence for its position, no more than Religion can for its. They are both simply belief systems. The only difference is that religion isn't deluded into thinking it has any scientific basis for its position. Your post gave me plenty of laughs. Thank you.