The Strange and Interesting Thread

[quadz]

Alpha, I feel you haven't addressed my question, so I'll try again:

When someone says, "I don't believe in astrology. Why? Well, there's no evidence that stellar objects, nor the position of our planet in orbit, have any determining effect on personality traits of a newborn exiting the womb."

You need to explain how this lack of belief makes someone "religious."

And remember to put on your intellectual honesty hat when answering, please.

[Alpha]

I have addressed it and you are squirming to get out of it. So what am i to say? that you think god doesn't exist? So if i was to put it like that, would i be correct in saying somewhere in your mind you are open to the possibility that there is a creator? If the answer is no, then it is of your belief there was no creator and you believe what scientist say about the big bang. It's still a religion

[|iR|Focalor]

Uh, yeah, it IS an oversimplification. The theory doesn't state that the "stuff" which exploded was not there,

Oh really? What you don't seem to grasp is where did the stuff that caused the big bang come from? ...

 
Haha! Oh my peanut riddled shit logs, are you for real!? No, you fucking idiot, I DO "grasp" it, that's why I said...

The theory states there was SOMETHING there (before the big bang). What happened to cause that SOMETHING to be there in the first place, they don't really have a theory about that presently that I know of.

Try READING the shit that I say rather than inferring whatever the hell you want to.

Even if they figured out what caused the big bang (which they never will) then you have to figure out what caused the cause, then what caused the cause that caused the big bang. You see there is a major problem here...

Yes, I do indeed see a major problem. I see a grossly negligent method of reasoning at work. You have the ability to reason that because no one has videotaped evidence of the big bang happening and no one can reproduce the big bang in a laboratory (it'd have to be one BIIIIIIIIIG ass lab), that all of the other evidence they have to support the theory as being the best explanation at present time... is just not enough in your (selectively) skeptical mind to allow you to call it in good conscience anything other than total bullshit. On the other hand...  .... You can pick up a copy of the King James Holy Bible, turn to the first chapter of the book of Genesis, and go, "Hell yeah, dude. Makes PERFECT sense. All the evidence to support this chapter is contained right here in this chapter , and I'm not even gonna fucking BOTHER myself to question it any further. It would be a complete waste of time to do so. Because while these big bang kooks have mathematical equations which have accurately plotted the paths of things floating in outer space over the course of eras and eons, I just don't understand math enough, so I'm just gonna completely ignore anything that's too complex for my uncultivated mind to understand. Women made from ribs, it is! Weeeeeee!"

Are you proof-reading any of the crap that's being hammered out through your keyboard, or do you just have a disgruntled trained dictation monkey doing it all and slipping this shit in just to spite you for not feeding him enough bananas? How is it that a person can be such a hoity-toity uber-skeptic when it comes to the most reasonable, logical theory available presently with bookoos of evidentiary support that you'd sequester and segregate it from any and all scholastic educational discussions until such time as there's irrefutable photographic evidence of it... MEANWHILE... You don't find ANYTHING AT ALL to be questionable about a story claiming that women were created from ribs, trees have fruit that bestow magical powers, and snakes can sometimes talk.

They have a word for this kind of thing. They sometimes use it in math, so here's a chance to learn something:

INCONGRUOUS - adj. - 
1. out of keeping or place; inappropriate; unbecoming
2. not harmonious in character; inconsonant; lacking harmony of parts
3. inconsistent

They also have another word for it.

HYPOCRITICAL - adj. -
2. possessing the characteristics of hypocrisy : "Isn't a politician hypocritical for talking about human dignity while voting against reasonable social programs?"

I'm sure you're familiar with that term. They talk about it a lot in your good book, and never with much fondness for it.

[quadz]

Oh really? What you don't seem to grasp is where did the stuff that caused the big bang come from? Even if they figured out what caused the big bang (which they never will) then you have to figure out what caused the cause, then what caused the cause that caused the big bang.

First things first: Mysteries are OK in science. It means we have more to learn. Indeed, that's where science does all of its work: at the perimeter of our collective ignorance, attempting to solve the next mysteries big and small, gradually expanding the sphere of our knowledge.

Second: There are probably some facets of nature our best science will never be able to probe. Do we cry about that? Well no, we keep following where evidence leads, and learning what we can.

Third: The infinite regress problem R is not solved by writing GOD(R). A small child could see this clearly, "Mommy, but then what caused God?" At which point Mommy replies: "Shhhhh. No critical thinking allowed beyond this point."

You see there is a major problem here and that is why I have been saying all this time that they believe something comes from nothing, because ultimately nothing would have had to have caused the big bang, unless of course they turn around and say the universe was always there, which they can't because they believe it exploded itself into existance, and there goes nearly all their theories like billions of years and evolution ect

So in the beginning nothing existed that caused an explosion is what scientist ultimately believe.

Cosmology, particle physics, and molecular biology are probably my favorite science-y topics. I'm a rank amateur and don't understand the maths, but I find the subjects fascinating.

Quantum mechanics -- the most precisely tested theory in all of science -- indicates that it is plausible that a universe resembling ours could spontaneously appear: that is, with a big bang being in essence a large version of the "mini bangs" that are happening all the time at the quantum level. (A Nobel prize in physics was recently awarded for work in measuring the predicted "mini bangs", aka quantum virtual particles.)

The larger the bang, the more rare, but if one begins with "nothing" (except quantum mechanics) and waits long enough, quantum theory suggests an event on the scale of the big bang should eventually occur.

Of course, a popular response at this point has been, "But you didn't really start with nothing, because you still need quantum mechanics!"

Sure, but so what? If true, it peels off one more layer of the onion: the mystery shifts from, "what triggered the big bang", to "why do the laws of quantum mechanics exist" -- which would be a remarkable step.

[quadz]

I have addressed it and you are squirming to get out of it.

Not a bit of it.

I have been providing examples to highlight the fallacious nature of your claim that lack of belief constitutes religiosity.

• Does lack of belief in the existence of invisible garden faeries make one religious? NO.
• Does lack of belief in the validity of astrology make one religious? NO.
• Does lack of belief in the claim that Elvis is alive somewhere in a spaceship sending signals through someone's TV set, make one religious? NO.
• Does lack of belief in the claim that a God exists who is fussy over who puts what where in the bedroom, and who demands to be worshipped under threat of eternal torture, make one religious? NO.

As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"This book says Hogwarts is real, you muggles! And if you don't believe me, YOU'RE religious!"

That's not how skepticism works.

So what am i to say? that you think god doesn't exist? So if i was to put it like that, would i be correct in saying somewhere in your mind you are open to the possibility that there is a creator? If the answer is no, then it is of your belief there was no creator and you believe what scientist say about the big bang. It's still a religion

Perhaps now we're getting somewhere?

Yes: The scientific position is indeed to be open to the possibility of a creator.

But any such god-hypothesis doesn't get special treatment.

Personally I'm open to the possibility of a creator in much the same way that I'm open to the possibility that what we perceive as the universe is actually running as a simulation on an alien supercomputer.

It could be true. But I don't know how to test those hypotheses, nor do I know how to falsify them.

However, as soon as someone starts proposing hypotheses that are testable, like, "The Earth was created 6000 years ago", or, "The human species began suddenly with a single male, female pair--Adam & Eve--and then proceeded through various forms of incest in order to increase its population" -- well these sorts of hypotheses are actually falsifiable, and are fully within the realm of scientific inquiry.

But nowhere along the way is a religious mindset required in order to test such hypotheses.

Make sense?

[Alpha]

Personally I'm open to the possibility of a creator in much the same way that I'm open to the possibility that what we perceive as the universe is actually running as a simulation on an alien supercomputer.

It could be true. But I don't know how to test those hypotheses, nor do I know how to falsify them.

Make sense?

I can accept your point of view only if you are really are open to the possibility of there being a creator however you have been arguing so doggedly to disprove it i have my doubts. In any event if that's what u truly think then we will just have go agree to disagree about the beginning of the universe.

Just on a side note, there are actually scientist who do  "believe" in the big bang and have stated it publicly.

[|iR|Focalor]

ding fries are done

[quadz]

Somewhere on the spectrum between Strange and Interesting, and... dishearteningly pathetic?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html

In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas

KATHERINE BYRON, a senior at Brown University and a member of its Sexual Assault Task Force, considers it her duty to make Brown a safe place for rape victims, free from anything that might prompt memories of trauma.

So when she heard last fall that a student group had organized a debate about campus sexual assault between Jessica Valenti, the founder of feministing.com, and Wendy McElroy, a libertarian, and that Ms. McElroy was likely to criticize the term “rape culture,” Ms. Byron was alarmed. “Bringing in a speaker like that could serve to invalidate people’s experiences,” she told me. It could be “damaging.”

Ms. Byron and some fellow task force members secured a meeting with administrators. Not long after, Brown’s president, Christina H. Paxson, announced that the university would hold a simultaneous, competing talk to provide “research and facts” about “the role of culture in sexual assault.” Meanwhile, student volunteers put up posters advertising that a “safe space” would be available for anyone who found the debate too upsetting.

The safe space, Ms. Byron explained, was intended to give people who might find comments “troubling” or “triggering,” a place to recuperate. The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma. Emma Hall, a junior, rape survivor and “sexual assault peer educator” who helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate, estimates that a couple of dozen people used it. At one point she went to the lecture hall — it was packed — but after a while, she had to return to the safe space. “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.

Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being “bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material.

(graphics by Eleanor Taylor)

 --> continue article on nytimes.com, for even more inanity
--> continue article on nytimes.com, for even more inanity

I'd been hearing for awhile that Political Correctness was running amok on a number of university campuses, but, damn. "What the actual fuck?", as they say in the vernacular.



...On a related note, this happened:

[2d]

Uh, yeah, it IS an oversimplification. The theory doesn't state that the "stuff" which exploded was not there,

Oh really? What you don't seem to grasp is where did the stuff that caused the big bang come from? ...

 
Haha! Oh my peanut riddled shit logs, are you for real!? No, you fucking idiot, I DO "grasp" it, that's why I said...

The theory states there was SOMETHING there (before the big bang). What happened to cause that SOMETHING to be there in the first place, they don't really have a theory about that presently that I know of.

Try READING the shit that I say rather than inferring whatever the hell you want to.

Even if they figured out what caused the big bang (which they never will) then you have to figure out what caused the cause, then what caused the cause that caused the big bang. You see there is a major problem here...

Yes, I do indeed see a major problem. I see a grossly negligent method of reasoning at work. You have the ability to reason that because no one has videotaped evidence of the big bang happening and no one can reproduce the big bang in a laboratory (it'd have to be one BIIIIIIIIIG ass lab), that all of the other evidence they have to support the theory as being the best explanation at present time... is just not enough in your (selectively) skeptical mind to allow you to call it in good conscience anything other than total bullshit. On the other hand...  .... You can pick up a copy of the King James Holy Bible, turn to the first chapter of the book of Genesis, and go, "Hell yeah, dude. Makes PERFECT sense. All the evidence to support this chapter is contained right here in this chapter , and I'm not even gonna fucking BOTHER myself to question it any further. It would be a complete waste of time to do so. Because while these big bang kooks have mathematical equations which have accurately plotted the paths of things floating in outer space over the course of eras and eons, I just don't understand math enough, so I'm just gonna completely ignore anything that's too complex for my uncultivated mind to understand. Women made from ribs, it is! Weeeeeee!"

Are you proof-reading any of the crap that's being hammered out through your keyboard, or do you just have a disgruntled trained dictation monkey doing it all and slipping this shit in just to spite you for not feeding him enough bananas? How is it that a person can be such a hoity-toity uber-skeptic when it comes to the most reasonable, logical theory available presently with bookoos of evidentiary support that you'd sequester and segregate it from any and all scholastic educational discussions until such time as there's irrefutable photographic evidence of it... MEANWHILE... You don't find ANYTHING AT ALL to be questionable about a story claiming that women were created from ribs, trees have fruit that bestow magical powers, and snakes can sometimes talk.

They have a word for this kind of thing. They sometimes use it in math, so here's a chance to learn something:

INCONGRUOUS - adj. - 
1. out of keeping or place; inappropriate; unbecoming
2. not harmonious in character; inconsonant; lacking harmony of parts
3. inconsistent

They also have another word for it.

HYPOCRITICAL - adj. -
2. possessing the characteristics of hypocrisy : "Isn't a politician hypocritical for talking about human dignity while voting against reasonable social programs?"

I'm sure you're familiar with that term. They talk about it a lot in your good book, and never with much fondness for it.

R O F L !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !                     R O F L !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 
This may be the best post ever written on tastyspleen

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!           LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

[Alpha]

You obviously havent read this then

http://forum.tastyspleen.net/quake/index.php?topic=5649.0 

or this http://forum.tastyspleen.net/quake/index.php?topic=21276.0 

[|iR|Focalor]

we will just have go agree to disagree about the beginning of the universe.

Nah. Can't do it. Ever since I learned that I'm "religious", no thanks to you, I feel that it's my duty to spread the glorious gospel of atheism and convert you to the truth. I refuse to allow us to disagree. I refuse to accept that people might have differences of opinion or perspective, because I am right and I know it, and therefore everyone else should be forced to accept this mindset as the normative. Furthermore, I refuse to utilize the ability to view anything at all from someone elses perspective, especially when exercising my right to vote for legislation that might adversely effect someone else or grant them a personal liberty that I don't want them to have even though someone possibly having the right to that personal liberty wouldn't truly effect me or anyone else in a negative way.

Everything I needed to know about how to be "religious", I learned from watching Christians.

[Alpha]

scientists force their mindset on school kids, and teach them a non testable assumption in the big bang and evolution 

[|iR|Focalor]

Actually, no they don't. By law (because of YOU PEOPLE), they make sure to vehemently stress the point that it's merely a "THEORY", and at the same time, they make mention of Creationism too. And because they have to mention Creationism and they don't want to step on anyone's toes by being perceived to teach/force any particular religion upon anyone, they really spend almost no time at all discussing the beginnings of the universe.

On a similar note... if Christianity were to start recruiting people aggressively like the military, but do it in a completely up front way, I wonder what the ads would look like. You'd probably see big posters and billboards along the highway saying something like...

Are you incapable of critical thinking? Are you capable of critical thinking, but just too damned lazy to be bothered with it? Do you despise everything that you're too dumb too understand? Do you have delusions that the entire world is actively engaged in a nefarious conspiracy to destroy itself and implode unbeknownst to itself? Do you sit awake at night thinking how horrible and wrong and detrimental it is to society as a whole that two men or two women might be having sex somewhere or getting married and that you have no choice but to do something to prevent such abominable acts? Do you also see nothing wrong at all with physically abusing and beating small children when they do something you don't like? Are you looking for a way to conveniently dispose of 10% of your annual income while collecting a tax break for it? Does it further sweeten the deal to know that that 10% will go to fund the promotion of an alien culture and unrealistic ideals in another country where they may not want such a thing? Do you like to constantly judge the character of others while claiming that you don't?

THEN I WANT YOU!
JOIN CHRISTIANITY TODAY, AND TOGETHER WE'LL MAKE THE WORLD A SAFER BETTER PLACE!

And then there'd be a picture of Jesus at the bottom, pointing at you like Uncle Sam or something. And maybe he's wearing a camouflage helmet cocked ever-so-slightly down towards his nose and he's chewing on a cigar. And he's got those black under-eye stripes painted on like NFL football players have. And then maybe he's also holding some big huge broad sword like from Highlander or some shit.

[quadz]

scientists force their mindset on school kids, and teach them a non testable assumption in the big bang and evolution 

Does it bother you even the tiniest bit that you're completely full of shit?

[Alpha]

Sigh, no i'm not. show me one test ever performed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the big bang made the universe, evolved everything over millions and billions of years, raining on a rock for millions of years, made life randomly spring up on 1 planet out of billions, made a planet habitable for life, then made trees so we have oxygen to breathe, then evolved pond scum into humans 

the big bang and evolution must have it's own intelligence to do all that aye