Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Abraxas]

Ok, but how do you apply that to the Big Bang theory? All the evidence that I have heard of supports an expanding of the observable universe. I have no doubt that the universe that we can observe is expanding. That strikes me as science.

To then make the enormous lead of faith and say that that proves there was a huge explosion of nothingness seems like pure conjecture. I could just as easily say that there is an object of unimaginable mass outside of our observation that is pulling apart the observable universe. There is as much scientific proof to back up my theory (which I just pulled out of my ass) as the Big Bang.

No, you are just ignorant of the proof concerning the Big Bang. Here's the thing about the universe, light takes time to travel. What that means is when you look at something a billion light-years away, you see what that thing looked like one billion years ago. When you look at the most distant points of our universe, you see a state consistent with the Big Bang theory, that is a hot dense state. We see this in the form of the cosmic microwave background which exists throughout the entire universe as we can see it. As you pointed out, also consistent with the Big Bang model is the entire universe expanding, but not just expanding, every point expanding away from every other point.

The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming, the problem is you are operating on a layman's understanding of the Big Bang as an explosion in nothing, the beginning of the universe. This is inaccurate. The Big Bang does not describe the origin of the universe but the development of the early universe. Truth is anyone with a scientific background in cosmology will tell you we are sorting out where it came from, hypotheses abound. You have ideas that do correspond to what could be called, I suppose, an explosion in nothing such as vacuum shift or symmetry breaking but there are other Big Bang models that use preexisting structures to create the Big Bang as we see it such as the cyclical model or the Ekpyrotic Membrane cosmology. The point is the Big Bang theory covers what we can observe but a number of different models and hypotheses exist to describe where it came from which we can't, yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

[buckshot24]

There is a difference between believe they exist and hypothesize that they may exist and that further experimentation is needed to determine if they do exist. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who purports to believe in a multiverse for which there is no evidence.

That doesn't stop them from using them as explanatory forces either.

Of course it would, but that is the logical endpoint of attempting to equivocate all forms of belief. Some belief is simply better justified than other belief.

I don't think anybody did this. You're arguing against a caricature.

Is it entirely subjective? Both have sources that indicate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each property, math can be done to determine how powerful an explosion is or how fast a ship travels or how much damage armor can take before failing based on dialogue and books and visuals. Hard numbers can be drawn in some cases.

Are you saying people debate the power of photon torpedo vs blasters? Or the force vs dilithium crystals or some other nonsense?

On the contrary, I would say what the Bible teaches is actually more subjective because under critical analysis the people teaching with the Bible have come to radically different conclusions about virtually every important point in the Bible, including such base things as whether Jesus actually rose from the dead or if there is a heaven.

You have to admit that the bible pretty clearly states Jesus rose from the dead, right? The text is pretty clear on this matter.

That is all beside the point, the point was that justification isn't in and of itself enough if the axioms on which the justification is built are themselves debatable and unsupported.

Which is an entirely irrelevant point. The point was and is that there is a standard whether you like the standard or not. Are you still trying to compare religion with science?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
This might be helpful in understanding why I argue that "heretic" is not common to all religions:

* The only church I've ever heard of using such a concept is Catholic. (Well, I suppose Muslims may have something but someone more familiar with them will need to comment.) ...

Fern

You should reconsider:
Judaism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Judaism
Islam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Islam
Baptist: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/juneweb-only/baptists-calvinism-heresy.html
Lutheran: http://www.theliberalspirit.com/?p=2167
Episcopal: http://www.christianpost.com/news/episcopal-head-clarifies-heresy-comments-40571/
Methodist: http://ucmpage.org/news/sprague_heresy11.html

Just a few examples. It seems like heresy is a fairly ubiquitous issue in religion. You'll also note that at least some Protestant denominations, e.g., Baptists, have the same sort of hierarchical structure as Catholicism.

 

[woolfe9998]

You should reconsider:
Judaism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Judaism
Islam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Islam
Baptist: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/juneweb-only/baptists-calvinism-heresy.html
Lutheran: http://www.theliberalspirit.com/?p=2167
Episcopal: http://www.christianpost.com/news/episcopal-head-clarifies-heresy-comments-40571/
Methodist: http://ucmpage.org/news/sprague_heresy11.html

Just a few examples. It seems like heresy is a fairly ubiquitous issue in religion. You'll also note that at least some Protestant denominations, e.g., Baptists, have the same sort of hierarchical structure as Catholicism.

I didn't look past your first link, but to be fair, the Jewish heresy article has linked examples at the bottom. Two were accused of heresy by someone in or around the mid 20th century. The rest are 19th century and back into BC. The concept may exist in Jewish doctrine, but it is pretty much extinct in the modern world. Dunno about the other religions.

 

[buckshot24]

You have ideas that do correspond to what could be called, I suppose, an explosion in nothing such as vacuum shift or symmetry breaking but there are other Big Bang models that use preexisting structures to create the Big Bang as we see it such as the cyclical model or the Ekpyrotic Membrane cosmology.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

LOL

There is just as much evidence for God's existence as there are for these branes smacking against themselves creating universes.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
On the contrary, I would say what the Bible teaches is actually more subjective because under critical analysis the people teaching with the Bible have come to radically different conclusions about virtually every important point in the Bible ...

Indeed, interpreting the Bible(s) is highly subjective, on multiple fronts. This is readily apparent from the fact that there are so many different Christian sects all based on the "same" Bible, yet differing with each other on many of their specific beliefs. Then consider that the choice of which texts to include in the Bible is subjective, and varies across some denominations. There are also many differing translations of those texts, with materially different interpretations of some passages. Also, even scholars of the ancient languages debate the meanings of many words and phrases, and recognize their imperfect understanding of their connotations in the context of the time they were written. Finally, much of what's written in the Bible is allegorical, leaving the message up to the interpretation of each reader.

 

[Bowfinger]

I didn't look past your first link, but to be fair, the Jewish heresy article has linked examples at the bottom. Two were accused of heresy by someone in or around the mid 20th century. The rest are 19th century and back into BC. The concept may exist in Jewish doctrine, but it is pretty much extinct in the modern world. Dunno about the other religions.

I just grabbed one sample link for each religion I searched. Several of the other links above are recent news stories. For example, I remember the Baptist one is within the last couple of years. Also, Fern's premise as I understand it is the concept of heresy is essentially unique to Catholicism. In contrast, I found examples for every religion I checked.

 

[buckshot24]

Indeed, interpreting the Bible(s) is highly subjective, on multiple fronts. This is readily apparent from the fact that there are so many different Christian sects all based on the "same" Bible, yet differing with each other on many of their specific beliefs. Then consider that the choice of which texts to include in the Bible is subjective, and varies across some denominations. There are also many differing translations of those texts, with materially different interpretations of some passages. Also, even scholars of the ancient languages debate the meanings of many words and phrases, and recognize their imperfect understanding of their connotations in the context of the time they were written. Finally, much of what's written in the Bible is allegorical, leaving the message up to the interpretation of each reader.

I didn't say it was a mathematical formula. Of course there are some disagreements but that doesn't mean a church doesn't need to try and justify their teachings with what the bible says. They may be incorrect in an interpretation but that wasn't the point I was making.

 

[Abraxas]

That doesn't stop them from using them as explanatory forces either.

It does, actually. They use them as potential explanatory forces if the data bears them out in the long run.

I don't think anybody did this. You're arguing against a caricature.

No, they just post all over the internet forums telling us that if you don't believe in their faith, you're an idiot. Trying to convert us to their anti-faith faith by proselytizing in a different fashion.

A long explanation agreeing that it's taken in faith.

Athiests BELIEVE the universe spontaneously came for nothing and that life evolved from inert chemicals. Their "God" is random phyiscal processes, etc... They have as much faith as Christians, they just believe in something else.

While you and Rob have been less direct about it, your comments certainly implied a parity when you introduced the multiverse in the first place as a point of discussion or when Rob was discussing whether atheists believe things or not.

Are you saying people debate the power of photon torpedo vs blasters? Or the force vs dilithium crystals or some other nonsense?

Yes, with all the passion of a religion debate.

You have to admit that the bible pretty clearly states Jesus rose from the dead, right? The text is pretty clear on this matter.

If that portion is to be taken literally, yes. The Muslims, however, in their practice of Christianity, decided he didn't really and formed their own religion.

Which is an entirely irrelevant point. The point was and is that there is a standard whether you like the standard or not. Are you still trying to compare religion with science?

I'm discussing human knowledge and who has evidence for what beliefs. What are you discussing?

LOL

There is just as much evidence for God's existence as there are for these branes smacking against themselves creating universes.

Yeah, except not. We can mathematically model 'branes and calculate their effect which makes them at least compatible with what we know about the universe. We can't even begin to do that for God or Gods.

 

[Atreus21]

I've read about the last two pages and I can't figure out who's on what side.

 

[Brian Stirling]

See above about no hierarchy. In the absence of a hierarchy "prevailing views" are not so well defined as you seem to think.



Meh, maybe, maybe not. Please be aware that there's no such thing as excommunication like the Catholics have.

This might be helpful in understanding why I argue that "heretic" is not common to all religions:

* The only church I've ever heard of using such a concept is Catholic. (Well, I suppose Muslims may have something but someone more familiar with them will need to comment.)

And more importantly

* Protestants WERE the heretics according to Catholics. That may help understand why Protestants do not embrace or adhere to the concept etc.

Fern

Why don't you give this a gander...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy


But to cut to the point you made about Protestants not having heretics see this excerpt...

"A prominent example of the execution of heretics under Protestant rule was the execution of the Boston martyrs in 1659, 1660, and 1661. These executions resulted from the actions of the Anglican Puritans, who at that time wielded political as well as ecclesiastic control in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. At the time, the colony leaders were apparently hoping to achieve their vision of a "purer absolute theocracy" within their colony[citation needed]. As such, they perceived the teachings and practices of the rival Quaker sect as heretical, even to the point where laws were passed and executions were performed with the aim of ridding their colony of such perceived "heresies".[citation needed] It should be noticed that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions generally regard the Puritans themselves as having been heterodox or heretical."


Pro Tip:

The next time you get all smug in attacking someone with your superior knowledge it would be best if you actually had that superior knowledge...


Brian

 

[buckshot24]

While you and Rob have been less direct about it, your comments certainly implied a parity when you introduced the multiverse in the first place as a point of discussion or when Rob was discussing whether atheists believe things or not.

So you then make the ridiculous leap that faith in God is the same thing as faith in gravity. You did that, not anybody else.

Yes, with all the passion of a religion debate.

LOL, nerds.

If that portion is to be taken literally, yes. The Muslims, however, in their practice of Christianity, decided he didn't really and formed their own religion.

Sigh, the text is all I am talking about. Whether it actually happened is another question.

I'm discussing human knowledge and who has evidence for what beliefs. What are you discussing?

You seem to keep expecting scientific like verification for religious beliefs when you've agreed that religion and science are different entities.

Yeah, except not. We can mathematically model 'branes and calculate their effect which makes them at least compatible with what we know about the universe. We can't even begin to do that for God or Gods.

We can mathematically model imaginary numbers as well, do they physically exist? There is no evidence for these finely tuned membranes colliding creating universes, period. You may as well argue that the Enterprise is faster than the Millennium Falcon if you give any weight to these conjectures.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Haha, of course religious beliefs have to be in their own special category.

The scientific method is the best tool we have for explaining our universe, "physical" or otherwise.

Cherry picking scientific theories to make a point is in fact, a violation of the scientific method, oddly enough.

May I recommend the following document?

http://shop.skeptic.com/merchant.mvc?&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=b075PB

 

[Juddog]

You may as well argue that the Enterprise is faster than the Millennium Falcon if you give any weight to these conjectures.

LOL, nerds.

 

[buckshot24]

Cherry picking scientific theories to make a point is in fact, a violation of the scientific method, oddly enough.http://shop.skeptic.com/merchant.mvc?&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=b075PB

In what way?

 

[Abraxas]

So you then make the ridiculous leap that faith in God is the same thing as faith in gravity. You did that, not anybody else.

On the contrary, bshole in particular was quite explicit that what scientists have is faith in natural processes, eg, gravity, the same as believers have faith in God.

Sigh, the text is all I am talking about. Whether it actually happened is another question.

Not what you said, you said what the Bible teaches. Whether the Bible teaches through literal text or parable is very much an open question, even in matters like the the aforementioned.

You seem to keep expecting scientific like verification for religious beliefs when you've agreed that religion and science are different entities.

No, I expect scientific like verification from anyone who equates the level of support for religion with the level of support for science. Science is held to a very high standard to ensure accuracy, if you are going to tell me that the Big Bang is no better supported than God, as one person was doing here, I expect evidence comparable to what is available for the Big Bang. Is this not reasonable or can we stop pretending people who believe in God do so for as evidenced reasons as those who believe in and practice science?

We can mathematically model imaginary numbers as well, do they physically exist? There is no evidence for these finely tuned membranes colliding creating universes, period. You may as well argue that the Enterprise is faster than the Millennium Falcon if you give any weight to these conjectures.

Well no, "finely tuned" is entirely meaningless in 'brane theory. There is evidence colliding branes could crete the universe as we know it, we can create mathematical models of how it would work, or put another way, the laws of physics as we know them are mathematically consistent with a 'brane collision. We don't even know that an intelligence can exist outside a material construct, let alone such an intelligence could will energy into existence. We have no way of knowing if a God is mathematically consistent with the universe as we see it.

 

[buckshot24]

On the contrary, bshole in particular was quite explicit that what scientists have is faith in natural processes, eg, gravity, the same as believers have faith in God.

I missed that post. But I'm still left wondering why you kept responding to me with the idea.

Not what you said, you said what the Bible teaches. Whether the Bible teaches through literal text or parable is very much an open question, even in matters like the the aforementioned.

Even a parable will be represented by text.

No, I expect scientific like verification from anyone who equates the level of support for religion with the level of support for science. Science is held to a very high standard to ensure accuracy, if you are going to tell me that the Big Bang is no better supported than God, as one person was doing here, I expect evidence comparable to what is available for the Big Bang. Is this not reasonable or can we stop pretending people who believe in God do so for as evidenced reasons as those who believe in and practice science?

Again I'm not sure why you kept harping on this with me since I never stated these things. I understand that these threads can get muddied up with multiple strains of thought but I never said it was the exact same kind of faith. Also I don't think bshole is saying that it is precisely the same kind of faith either. Perhaps, similar?

Well no, "finely tuned" is entirely meaningless in 'brane theory.

These branes have to have specific properties if they are going to be smacking against each other creating universes for eternity. They need to be infinitely fine tuned or they would have stopped creating universes an eternity ago.

There is evidence colliding branes could crete the universe as we know it

The level of evidence that you accept for these ad hoc speculations is really telling. There is no evidence that these things even exist, they are fairy tales.

, we can create mathematical models of how it would work, or put another way, the laws of physics as we know them are mathematically consistent with a 'brane collision.

That isn't evidence that they exist. I can model a frictionless pulley, they don't exist.

We don't even know that an intelligence can exist outside a material construct, let alone such an intelligence could will energy into existence. We have no way of knowing if a God is mathematically consistent with the universe as we see it.

You're confusing evidence with "it's possible". What laws of physics does God existing outside of the universe violate? If it is possible, is that evidence for God's existence?

 

[Fern]

Why don't you give this a gander...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy


But to cut to the point you made about Protestants not having heretics see this excerpt...

"A prominent example of the execution of heretics under Protestant rule was the execution of the Boston martyrs in 1659, 1660, and 1661. These executions resulted from the actions of the Anglican Puritans, who at that time wielded political as well as ecclesiastic control in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. At the time, the colony leaders were apparently hoping to achieve their vision of a "purer absolute theocracy" within their colony[citation needed]. As such, they perceived the teachings and practices of the rival Quaker sect as heretical, even to the point where laws were passed and executions were performed with the aim of ridding their colony of such perceived "heresies".[citation needed] It should be noticed that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions generally regard the Puritans themselves as having been heterodox or heretical."


Pro Tip:

The next time you get all smug in attacking someone with your superior knowledge it would be best if you actually had that superior knowledge...


Brian

A long explanation agreeing that it's taken in faith.



Science and religion are different things by nature and purpose. Religious views do have "checks and balances", and no, they are not forbidden lest one be called a heretic. At least not in a long time (and I believe that was limited to the Catholic church back when it was busy being both religion and govt.)

Fern

Really?

You're going back to the witch burning days to support your claims that all religions still call people heretics?

Here's your post I was responding to. Sure looks like the present tense:

-snip-
Religious views not only don't have these checks and balances they are forbidden lest one be called a heretic.


Brian

Edit: BTW your example is that of an Anglican church. It's, at best, questionable if they're Protestant. Other than recognizing the Pope, a political problem for a certain English king IIRC, they're Catholic by comparison with most Protestant churches.

Fern

 

[monovillage]

The list of scientific heretics who were persecuted for their radical ideas but eventually proved right keeps getting longer. Last month, Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of quasicrystals, having spent much of his career being told he was wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577023893088328710.html

The liars that try to claim that science is above such a thing as heresy are , of course, lying.

 

[werepossum]

As an atheist myself, I get real tired of seeing atheists file suits over stupid shit like this. I mean really, it's not that big of a deal and they come off as asses in the process. Is putting a cross on a metal beam really infringing on your right not to believe in God?

These petty lawsuits give atheists a bad name.

Well said.

Totally agree. I just find it ironic that they're so offended by this cross symbol when they're actively and overtly proselytizing atheism on public property in many other areas of the country.

Agreed. Although there is a certain humor in that bench.

We were a country founded on freedom of religion. We've somehow corrupted that into freedom from religion.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Really?

You're going back to the witch burning days to support your claims that all religions still call people heretics?

Here's your post I was responding to. Sure looks like the present tense:



Edit: BTW your example is that of an Anglican church. It's, at best, questionable if they're Protestant. Other than recognizing the Pope, a political problem for a certain English king IIRC, they're Catholic by comparison with most Protestant churches.

Fern

Well you get pwned and continue to try to wiggle out of it, Anglicans are practically Catholics... 🙂

And, as you had previously indicated heresy is a Catholic thing you seem to dismiss the fact that a significant portion of Muslims think most of the rest of Muslims are heretics and this isn't hundreds of years ago its this very day!

Face it, you think you know more about religion then you actually do and I suspect, though can't confirm, you've been brainwashed by your pastor.

Years ago, while living in Florida, I went up to see what all the fuss was during the Terry Schiavo thing. There were hundreds of reporters including Anderson Cooper from CNN as well as many hundreds of people from all over the country and even other countries. There was one religious group, from Texas I think, that seemed to have only one thing to say and that was that Catholics were evil, evil people. There is clearly some strain of Protestants that continue to this day to attack other Christians for their failure to believe in the same way.

You seem to have a particular dislike for Catholics and I have to wonder if this is something being taught by your pastors...

I am, BTW, agnostic...


Brian

 

[Abraxas]

I missed that post. But I'm still left wondering why you kept responding to me with the idea.

Again I'm not sure why you kept harping on this with me since I never stated these things. I understand that these threads can get muddied up with multiple strains of thought but I never said it was the exact same kind of faith. Also I don't think bshole is saying that it is precisely the same kind of faith either. Perhaps, similar?

If that isn't your position I am having a hard time determining what exactly your point is. What is the purpose of bringing up things like the multiverse if your point isn't "well you are the same as we are"?

These branes have to have specific properties if they are going to be smacking against each other creating universes for eternity. They need to be infinitely fine tuned or they would have stopped creating universes an eternity ago.

Not really, that is one of the things about 'branes is that they aren't very complicated being a two dimensional string ala string theory. They have a size and a vibration but otherwise there isn't really anything to them.

Even a parable will be represented by text.

Sure, but the question is what is it trying to teach. You had indicated this was not subjective and so my question remains if it is in fact not subjective, why do even basic elements produce radically different results based on the interpreter of the text?

The level of evidence that you accept for these ad hoc speculations is really telling. There is no evidence that these things even exist, they are fairy tales.

No, you're just misreading me. Not all evidence is equal, a rumor that Ted killed Tim is evidence of a lesser quality than a gun matching the projectile in Tim with Ted's fingerprints on it is lesser than a security camera video of Ted shooting Tim. Evidence that something is possible is the lowest, most base, least conclusive level of evidence, but is still evidence. If we can't even establish something can be done based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, we have zero evidence. I am simply drawing a distinction between no evidence and little evidence, not accepting the truth of a low evidence idea. That one has more evidence than the other does not mean it has enough evidence to be confirmed.

I suppose if you would prefer it is the absence of counter-evidence but I prefer to use a more nuanced approach, the reason being that a clear violation of natural law is evidence against. If I find a jar on a chair, what I know about gravity is clear evidence against it having levitated there. If I do not know whether something is a violation of the laws of physics, I cannot claim to have evidence either way, can I? So, if I know something does obey the laws of physics or is at least compatible with them, should I consider that in the same light as not having any knowledge one way or the other when deciding whether I should believe it? I don't think so and so I use a three category approach to evidence on the grounds of does it fit with the laws of physics as we know them. YMMV.

That isn't evidence that they exist. I can model a frictionless pulley, they don't exist.

Model one that meets our understanding of the laws of physics? Doubtful, but I'd love to see it.

You're confusing evidence with "it's possible". What laws of physics does God existing outside of the universe violate? If it is possible, is that evidence for God's existence?

You would have to define God first, obviously, but using the clasical conception intelligence is a charcteristic of God and intelligence as we know it requires matter, matter which requires spacetime with laws of physics like electromagnetism to function. If God exists outside of our spacetime, outside of our physics, the intelligence would seem to be difficult. Now, that is not to say impossible, but I think you would have some difficulty establishing God as is classically conceived to fit within them. At best I think you could rate it a "don't know" which makes it less established than "determined consistent with physics of the universe", a distinction between low evidence and no evidence. If you could establish a model of God that fit with known laws of physics, would it be evidence? Yes, but only of the most mild kind and grossly insufficient to be claimed to be proof.

 

[Darwin333]

I could ask you the same question...

Thats the difference between you and I, I don't know. However, using everything I DO know I can make an educated deduction that thousand year old books making absurd claims without a shred of facts or a single piece of evidence that can be duplicated are most likely not true. Obviously I can't say that as a fact but basically the sum total of mankind's knowledge to date points towards them being fairy tales invented as a tool to control people.

Furthermore, given our knowledge of psychology I can further deduce that most religious people believe in religion, including their specific religion, because the knowledge was implanted into their brains and continually reinforced from damn near the moment they were born. Its just like Santa Clause with one very big difference. Santa Clause is supposed to actually do something every year and it can be proven if he did or did not do it rather easily. Kids eventually stop believing in Santa because they catch mommy and daddy putting their toys out, or one of their friends that did tells them or whatever. Unfortunately, while making even wilder claims, religion is smart enough not to give you an "ah ha!" point that you can find at a young age to undue what has been pounded into your brain all of your life. The nice word for what this is called is "programming" and there is more evidence of that than there is that the fairy tale(s) are true.

If I may ask you a personal question, why do you believe the specific religion that you do instead of one of the dozens of others?

 

[Darwin333]

That's fine for ideas that can be verified but the multiverse idea can not be verified unless we can leave our own universe.
Not even close. The only reason the multi-verse idea exists is because cosmologists didn't like the God conclusion.

Maybe an asshole or two exists that thinks that way but by and large that is utter bullshit. There is absolutely no need to create something to replace the "God conclusion". History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "god conclusion" is used out of ignorance when man has reached the limit of his knowledge. The smartest man in recorded history did so himself and its funny because the only place god comes up in his scientific writings is when he reached the absolute limit of his knowledge. Guess what, we have since figured out what he invoked the "god conclusion" about.

The "god conclusion" has been used basically throughout almost all (if not all) of our recorded history. Luckily for religion they get to continually move the goalposts every time science discovers what the last "god conclusion" really is. That is why you don't believe the sun is really the wheel of some chariot driven around the earth by one of the gods.

Your entire argument that science is just bullshitting around in order to disprove a conclusion that is completely and totally irrelevant in science is absurd.

 

[moonbogg]

Dirty atheists. Always sticking to things like the constitution and stuff. Idiots. So rude.