The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[Omar F1]

Well, it seems that scientists are willing to spend their lives while researching, analyzing, then presenting their hypothesis and theories about the life creation since billions of years ago. Or else, someone had spent 17-years studying a skeleton that considered to be dead since four-million-years ago.
However, and strangely enough, it looks like nobody of them is willing to investigate the truth and credibility about what might be considered a religious fiction. For example, the story of an infant which was born miraculously only since 2015-years ago. He spoke clearly while he was still infant; had the ability to cure the diseased, resurrect the dead and possessed some knowledge of the unseen. For which, it wasn't so long until he was considered a god by some people and have been worshipped ever since then.

I wonder, why such a claim wouldn't be investigated with same level of care and attention.

Science doesn't investigate "magic" or "miracles." If your proposed explanation relies on anything supernatural, it cannot be scientifically investigated. Period. You would do well to educate yourself on the particulars of the scientific method.

Scientific method, yeah yeah..........every criminal case out there gets investigated in scientific way, we eat and engage in sexual relations by scientific way...

Thanks for your input and insights btw. Seriously I need to scientifically educate myself much more, but here is also an advise for you: Life isn't only 1+1=2 or a matter of white/black. There are things in life that can't be scientifically measured, observed or proven - that doesn't necessarily mean they're impossible to exist or never did.

What is "intelligent design"? Is there anything that is NOT "intelligent design"? What would something that is not "intelligently designed" look like? How would you know?

I'm not sure whether you kidding or simply failed to see my point. Another detour and disregard for a very important question.

Why from all the different thousands kinds of living species there was only the human who have materialized and emerged victorious with full freely-thinking mindset, while all others are only acting in such very limited and scripted-like way.

Besides, looking back into circumstances surrounding the life of primitive humans, would you please explain why we never adapted an ability to fly? It was a must feature I guess; the quick ability to look for food and water, it was a much needed ability to save them torturous travel times.
How about a Wolverine-like weapon to defend themselves against Dinosaurs?
And since those who settled and lived nearby a sea since very long time, but still can't swim any better than those who been around the desert since Abraham days. Wasn't fishing part of their daily life.
Speaking of deserts, would that theory also explain why camels has that incredible ability to survive thirst for weeks, while Bedouin almost has the same exact enduring ability against thirst, compared to those who settled in the far northern regions around rivers.

Some serious consideration and thoughtful look is needed beside scientific mindset, whether now or long after, I think it's worth it.

Look man, I have very little patience for this kind of ignorance. The information is out there. It's not secret. It's not complicated. It's up to you to educate yourself. Get started, you're way behind.

I see it as a valid point and sort of shortcoming for that evolution theory.
I'm still interested to hear opinion from a pro-evolutionist on that argument.

We didn't need a flying ability? hmm, I guess that's debatable.


Speaking of BS btw, here is what I consider a humiliating F'ing BS that came straight out from some wild imagination.

 

[realibrad]

Scientific method, yeah yeah..........every criminal case out there gets investigated in scientific way, we eat and engage in sexual relations by scientific way...

Thanks for your input and insights btw. Seriously I need to scientifically educate myself much more, but here is also an advise for you: Life isn't only 1+1=2 or a matter of white/black. There are things in life that can't be scientifically measured, observed or proven - that doesn't necessarily mean they're impossible to exist or never did.



I'm not sure whether you kidding or simply failed to see my point. Another detour and disregard for a very important question.

Why from all the different thousands kinds of living species there was only the human who have materialized and emerged victorious with full freely-thinking mindset, while all others are only acting in such very limited and scripted-like way.



I see it as a valid point and sort of shortcoming for that evolution theory.
I'm still interested to hear opinion from a pro-evolutionist on that argument.

We didn't need a flying ability? hmm, I guess that's debatable.


Speaking of BS btw, here is what I consider a humiliating F'ing BS that came straight out from some wild imagination.

First you need to understand what evolution is and is not.

Evolution does not mean one day a lizard formed wings to fly. Evolution cannot think. Evolution is when one trait gives an advantage.

Say mouse has a mutated gene that gives it darker fur in a snowy place. That dark fur makes it easier to spot by prey. It will be less likely to to survive and thus less likely to breed. Its dark gene is not likely to be passed on.

Now, say that same mouse lives in Pinacate Peaks where lava flows have made part of the desert have dark streaks. The dark hair gene would give an advantage in those dark streaks, but not the normal colored mice. So, the gene then will likely be passed on because the advantage of the dark fur benefits the mice on the dark spots. Mice that live on the light spots would be at a disadvantage.

Given enough time, you get will get 2 very different looking mice. The dark spots will be filled with the dark mice, and the light spots filled with the light mice. This is what we see with the Rock Pocket mouse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjeSEngKGrg

This is a quick 10min vid on this very thing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not sure whether you kidding or simply failed to see my point. Another detour and disregard for a very important question.

No, I am very serious. If you cannot answer the questions I put before you, you do not have a workable idea of "intelligent design." That's the bottom line.

Why from all the different thousands kinds of living species there was only the human who have materialized and emerged victorious with full freely-thinking mindset, while all others are only acting in such very limited and scripted-like way.

I have to wonder where you acquired your animal mind-reading abilities that give you such confidence to make these astonishing claims. It is by no means a fact at all that "only the human" has "materialized and emerged victorious with full freely-thinking mindset, while all others are only acting in such very limited and scripted-like way."

I see it as a valid point and sort of shortcoming for that evolution theory.

You think that because you have very wrong ideas about evolutionary theory.

I'm still interested to hear opinion from a pro-evolutionist on that argument.

We didn't need a flying ability? hmm, I guess that's debatable.

No, it isn't debatable. We made it to the present as an immensely populous and dominant species without the ability to fly. Clearly, it wasn't necessary.

Speaking of BS btw, here is what I consider a humiliating F'ing BS that came straight out from some wild imagination.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[bshole]

First you need to understand what evolution is and is not.

Evolution does not mean one day a lizard formed wings to fly. Evolution cannot think. Evolution is when one trait gives an advantage.

Say mouse has a mutated gene that gives it darker fur in a snowy place. That dark fur makes it easier to spot by prey. It will be less likely to to survive and thus less likely to breed. Its dark gene is not likely to be passed on.

Now, say that same mouse lives in Pinacate Peaks where lava flows have made part of the desert have dark streaks. The dark hair gene would give an advantage in those dark streaks, but not the normal colored mice. So, the gene then will likely be passed on because the advantage of the dark fur benefits the mice on the dark spots. Mice that live on the light spots would be at a disadvantage.

Given enough time, you get will get 2 very different looking mice. The dark spots will be filled with the dark mice, and the light spots filled with the light mice. This is what we see with the Rock Pocket mouse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjeSEngKGrg

This is a quick 10min vid on this very thing.

You don't need even need that. The geologic column is insurmountable as evidence. DNA sequencing evidence (the second best evidence in my opinion) is just piling on.

Neither of these shattered my faith however. It was starlight that proved to me beyond all doubt that the Bible was myth. We could not see the universe if what the Bible said was true.

http://eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evoution/

But instead of looking at close relatives, let’s look at very distant relatives, like the fruit fly. Shockingly there is some fascinating evidence that we are even genetically related to these little bugs.

Geneticists discovered some crazy mutant fruit flies about a century ago. One mutation, for example, gave a fly that had legs growing out of the head where the antennae were supposed to be. Imagine that! During development the cells that were supposed to make antennae instead made legs that now protruded from the head! Another interesting mutation gave a fly with no eyes.

As technology advanced it became possible for us to manipulate the genes of the fly. We could alter the gene involved in leg/antennae development and re-create a fly with legs coming out of the head. But even more remarkable, we learned how to introduce human genes into the fly. And when we made similar alterations to the human counterpart of the fly gene, and put it in the fly, we got the same result, a fly with legs on the head! The human gene seemed to be functionally equivalent when placed in the context of the fly. A truly surprising and amazing discovery!

We could also take the fly gene found to be critically important for making eyes and cause it to be mis-expressed during development. It was found that if this gene was activated on the legs, for example, one could make a fly with extra eyes on its legs! Indeed it was possible to make a fly with lots of eyes, on the legs, on the antennae, and at other places on the body. But, once again, the most remarkable result came when we took the human gene most closely related to the fly eye gene and placed it in the fly. Just like for the fly eye gene, we found that if we turned on the human gene at various locations during development we could make a fly that had fly eyes all over its body. Once again, the fly and human eye genes appeared to be functionally equivalent.

These results show a remarkable, and quite unexpected, conservation of developmental genetic programs stretching across enormous evolutionary distances. Many human genes seem to work quite well, thank you, when functionally tested in fruit flies, where they initiate genetic cascades that drive the formation of discrete fly body parts. That is, in many cases fly and human genes are functionally interchangeable.

These experiments demonstrate evolutionary relatedness not only between chimps and people, but also between insects and people.

And this is one way that DNA proves evolution.

 

[shira]

New organs of perception develop from need so I do recommend increasing your need. You don't properly understand need, however. You do not seek to bottom out as if it were some noble goal. That comes to some of us via unfortunate circumstances, naturally. For normal adjusted folk like yourself, much will depend on your sensitivity, for lack of a better word. I think of it sort of like a spiritual sleep. I suggest you were born in a perfect state of unity, an unconscious state of self love that for some is a Siren call. Curiosity can work too.

PS: Increasing ones need can be a matter only of discovering how much need you have that you were formerly unconscious of. Some sort of crisis may bring this about.

You believe that cultivating need represents an increase in perception. And yet in nirvana is the absence of desire.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You don't need even need that. The geologic column is insurmountable as evidence. DNA sequencing evidence (the second best evidence in my opinion) is just piling on.

Neither of these shattered my faith however. It was starlight that proved to me beyond all doubt that the Bible was myth. We could not see the universe if what the Bible said was true.

http://eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evoution/

I was able to bolt up a brake caliper off a 1984 Honda Magna to my 1981 Honda CX500. Works just great. Does that prove that the CX500 evolved into the Magna? Or does it just show that the two bikes had a common designer?

/this is what Creationists actually argue

 

[Moonbeam]

You believe that cultivating need represents an increase in perception. And yet in nirvana is the absence of desire.

I would suggest that perhaps Nervana is a conscious state in which oneness with the universe is experienced. If so then you can ask yourself whether oneness or separation is the more joyous state. From that, and how you answer you can maybe judge your need.

 

[MagickMan]

But that's false. The truth of logical conclusions do not depend on any "parameters" or "environment." You're clearly just making shit up because you don't understand the grown up concepts.

You're unbearably stupid, while being smug at the same time, it's painful to watch.

See what I mean? It really isn't hard to see this as projection of your feelings about yourself.

No, because I have no religious beliefs. You don't even know what you mean. :\

 

[MagickMan]

*I chase my tail for a while*

Holy shit, you're such a willfully daft wise and beautiful woman.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're unbearably stupid, while being smug at the same time, it's painful to watch.

Holy shit, you're such a willfully daft wise and beautiful woman.

Heyyyyyy!!! Look who came back around to take a couple of meaningless pot shots!! :awe:

How ya been, buddy?

Did you have anything to say... y'know... in response to the actual argument? I noticed your most recent replies were conspicuously absent of any real substance. Tell me more about the relativistic quantum mechanics. That should be a good one.

No, because I have no religious beliefs. You don't even know what you mean.

Who said anything about religious beliefs? Can you try to focus for 5 seconds, please?

 

[MagickMan]

Heyyyyyy!!! Look who came back around to take a couple of meaningless pot shots!! :awe:

Hey, it's that stupid bitch again!! I was out doing something fun and meaningful for the last couple days, sorry to make you wait.

Who said anything about religious beliefs? Can you try to focus for 5 seconds, please?

My original comment was directed at Moonpie regarding his crisis of faith. That's what you get for cutting-in, you ignorant twat.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hey, it's that stupid bitch again!!

So, that's a "no," on the whole "do you have a rebuttal" question. I'm compelled to wonder what you're doing still coming back to the thread, then. Are you just trying to remind us that you have utterly failed at mustering a rebuttal? Because we're pretty well aware.

I was out doing something fun and meaningful for the last couple days, sorry to make you wait.

Looks like we're just gonna have to keep waiting, too, eh?

My original comment was directed at Moonpie regarding his crisis of faith.

That's great, but what does it have to do with what I said?

That's what you get for cutting-in, you ignorant twat.

I get more of your pathetically confused failure to compose meaningful rebuttals?

 

[MagickMan]

So, that's a "no," on the whole "do you have a rebuttal" question. I'm compelled to wonder what you're doing still coming back to the thread, then. Are you just trying to remind us that you have utterly failed at mustering a rebuttal? Because we're pretty well aware.

You're incapable of understanding my rebuttal, so what would be the point?

Looks like we're just gonna have to keep waiting, too, eh?

Just like I'm waiting for you to stop being an intolerably smug sack of shit. It'll be a long wait, I imagine. :\

That's great, but what does it have to do with what I said?

What did your reply have to do with what I said?

I get more of your pathetically confused failure to compose meaningful rebuttals?

I imagine you're pathetically confused all the time, but you attempt to camouflage it with poorly adapted rhetoric from your betters.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So Atheism is noe considered a religion....why it was just yesterday....

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're incapable of understanding my rebuttal, so what would be the point?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! What are you, 8 years old?

"Oh yes, I know the answer, sure.... I'm just not gonna tell YOU."

Holy shit, that's just marvelous. :awe:

Just like I'm waiting for you to stop being an intolerably smug sack of shit. It'll be a long wait, I imagine. :\

Y'know what would shut me up right quick? A refutation of my argument.

But... since you don't have one, I'm just gonna keep on pointing it out, over, and over, and over, and over.

It's also fun to point out that your first few attempts at rebutting the argument were straight-up air balls. "4D space." "G is external." "Relativistic quantum mechanics."

Why should we believe that you're anything more than just a sore loser?

What did your reply have to do with what I said?

Here's what I said:

See what I mean? It really isn't hard to see this as projection of your feelings about yourself.

What part of that is confusing to you?

I imagine you're pathetically confused all the time, but you attempt to camouflage it with poorly adapted rhetoric from your betters.

That's fantastic. Now, about that alleged rebuttal that you're lying about having...

 

[soulcougher73]

So Atheism is noe considered a religion....why it was just yesterday....

Nope. Still not a religion. Maybe someday you'll figure that out.

 

[soulcougher73]

This thread is now about Relativistic quantum mechanics. MagickMan...you're up. Go!!

 

[realibrad]

So Atheism is noe considered a religion....why it was just yesterday....

Who said it was a religion yesterday?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nope. Still not a religion. Maybe someday you'll figure that out.

Who said it was a religion yesterday?

It pretty easy to see that atheism is not a religion.

Theism isn't a religion, either. Theism is an attribute of many religions.

Likewise, atheism is an attribute of many worldviews, some religious and some secular. It surely isn't a religion unto itself.

 

[shira]

I would suggest that perhaps Nervana is a conscious state in which oneness with the universe is experienced. If so then you can ask yourself whether oneness or separation is the more joyous state. From that, and how you answer you can maybe judge your need.

I've found that the best test of one's understanding of a thing is whether one can clearly explain the thing to someone else. If no one has a clue of what one is talking about, the problem is with one's own fuzzy thinking, not with the "ineffable."

So, since none of us has any frigging idea of what "oneness with the universe" means, I suggest avoiding the use of phrases like that. Again, if you can't make clear what you're trying to say, the problem is NOT with others.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've found that the best test of one's understanding of a thing is whether one can clearly explain the thing to someone else. If no one has a clue of what one is talking about, the problem is with one's own fuzzy thinking, not with the "ineffable."

So, since none of us has any frigging idea of what "oneness with the universe" means, I suggest avoiding the use of phrases like that. Again, if you can't make clear what you're trying to say, the problem is NOT with others.

I made it quite clear why you were wrong about light, but you persisted with your incorrect analysis anyway. I have explained again what was wrong with your analysis. Let me know if that did any good. I don't see much point in knocking myself out trying to explain what you call ineffable, and I have gone over in detail many many times before if I can't even explain something much more rudimentary. I agree that fuzzy thinking can hamper explanation, but that doesn't mean you don't have unconscious resistance. I mentioned increasing ones need, not to suggest some hair shirt mentality, but because I know some things about myself. There was a time when I was just like you, and what I know is that I was profoundly resistant to knowing anything. I was a fucking smart assed genius and I knew everything. That's the fucker who took a big fall, really found out he had fallen long before. So where are we on the streetcar thingi?

And furthermore who was it that used the fuzzy term Nirvana, suggesting it meant an absence of need? You left me to guess what Nirvana could possibly mean. I had to fit it into my own frame of thinking and the only place I know of where there is no need is in a state of fullness The only place I know of where one is full is where ones consciousness transcends the boundaries of self, there the lover disappears in the Beloved. The only questions you should be asking it seems to me is if such a state exists and if so how does one undergo whatever it is that may happen to arrive there. I have already told you that this is something the ego can't do because the ego will not commit suicide, not this type, anyway.

Now just because I say what I think your questions should be doesn't mean that you have to ask them. I am a nobody. I am not a teacher. I have no special knowledge or training. I have nothing to gain. I can't get any points. I like you and can only give you my best effort, worthless as it may be.

 

[shira]

I made it quite clear why you were wrong about light, but you persisted with your incorrect analysis anyway. I have explained again what was wrong with your analysis. Let me know if that did any good. I don't see much point in knocking myself out trying to explain what you call ineffable, and I have gone over in detail many many times before if I can't even explain something much more rudimentary. I agree that fuzzy thinking can hamper explanation, but that doesn't mean you don't have unconscious resistance. I mentioned increasing ones need, not to suggest some hair shirt mentality, but because I know some things about myself. There was a time when I was just like you, and what I know is that I was profoundly resistant to knowing anything. I was a fucking smart assed genius and I knew everything. That's the fucker who took a big fall, really found out he had fallen long before. So where are we on the streetcar thingi?

And furthermore who was it that used the fuzzy term Nirvana, suggesting it meant an absence of need? You left me to guess what Nirvana could possibly mean. I had to fit it into my own frame of thinking and the only place I know of where there is no need is in a state of fullness The only place I know of where one is full is where ones consciousness transcends the boundaries of self, there the lover disappears in the Beloved. The only questions you should be asking it seems to me is if such a state exists and if so how does one undergo whatever it is that may happen to arrive there. I have already told you that this is something the ego can't do because the ego will not commit suicide, not this type, anyway.

Now just because I say what I think your questions should be doesn't mean that you have to ask them. I am a nobody. I am not a teacher. I have no special knowledge or training. I have nothing to gain. I can't get any points. I like you and can only give you my best effort, worthless as it may be.

Oh, you mean this?

It seems to me that if one light beam overtakes another going in the same direction at the speed of light there would be no such thing as time and you would see the entire universe and it's entire history in total from any point in space. I would see light traveling from a distant star a million years ago and the light that left it today.

If you have two points in space separated by distance d and two beams of light leaving one for the other point ad t1 and t2, they have to arrive at t3 and t4 because the velocity of light between two points is k.

Your analysis about two beams of light is utterly beside the point. The original post that I responded to described a thought experiment involving a streetcar moving away from a clock-tower at the speed of light. A streetcar moving at a constant speed c is an inertial reference frame indistinguishable from any other inertial reference frame. Thus, the speed of light from the clock-tower, measured from inside the streetcar would be c. The speed of light shining from a flashlight inside the clock-tower would also be measured as c.

But don't take my word for it. Simply look up "postulates of special relativity." For example:

2. The Constancy of Speed of Light in Vacuum
The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

or

2. The speed of light is independent of the motion of the source.

or

2. The constancy of the speed of light: Observers in all inertial systems measure the same value for the speed of light in a vacuum.

And on and on and on and on.

According to what "it seems to you," a streetcar traveling at (say) 0.9999c would measure the speed of light from the clock-tower as passing it at 0.0001c, completely contradicting the 2nd postulate. In essence, you're claiming that Moonbeam has "made it quite clear" that Special Relativity is wrong.

I await publication of your Nobel-prize-winning paper on this subject, overturning 110 years of research.

Edit: Oh, and back to my previous point: Your use of "oneness with the universe" is still meaningless pap.

 

[bshole]

I've found that the best test of one's understanding of a thing is whether one can clearly explain the thing to someone else. If no one has a clue of what one is talking about, the problem is with one's own fuzzy thinking, not with the "ineffable."

So, since none of us has any frigging idea of what "oneness with the universe" means, I suggest avoiding the use of phrases like that. Again, if you can't make clear what you're trying to say, the problem is NOT with others.

LoL. I think I understand only about 10% of what Moonbeam posts. It is like he is talking a different language. There are times when I think he has insulted me but I am simply not intelligent enough to figure what the insult was. On the other hand, when Boberfett calls me a stupid drooling fucktard.... that I do understand.

"Moonspeak" is an extremely difficult dialect to master and sadly I am no closer to breaking that language barrier than when I first experienced it. If we had a Rosetta stone on this forum to interpret his posts it would be of much value.

 

[shira]

LoL. I think I understand only about 10% of what Moonbeam posts. It is like he is talking a different language. There are times when I think he has insulted me but I am simply not intelligent enough to figure what the insult was. On the other hand, when Boberfett calls me a stupid drooling fucktard.... that I do understand.

"Moonspeak" is an extremely difficult dialect to master and sadly I am no closer to breaking that language barrier than when I first experienced it. If we had a Rosetta stone on this forum to interpret his posts it would be of much value.

That fact you're confused about the other 90% doesn't mean there's anything there to be understood in the first place. In fact, it's good evidence that the problem is with the messenger.

Don't get me wrong: I often enjoy Moonbeam's humor. But there are times when he pretends too hard to be the Zen master.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh, you mean this?

Your analysis about two beams of light is utterly beside the point. The original post that I responded to described a thought experiment involving a streetcar moving away from a clock-tower at the speed of light. A streetcar moving at a constant speed c is an inertial reference frame indistinguishable from any other inertial reference frame. Thus, the speed of light from the clock-tower, measured from inside the streetcar would be c. The speed of light shining from a flashlight inside the clock-tower would also be measured as c.

But don't take my word for it. Simply look up "postulates of special relativity." For example:


or



or



And on and on and on and on.

According to what "it seems to you," a streetcar traveling at (say) 0.9999c would measure the speed of light from the clock-tower as passing it at 0.0001c, completely contradicting the 2nd postulate. In essence, you're claiming that Moonbeam has "made it quite clear" that Special Relativity is wrong.

I await publication of your Nobel-prize-winning paper on this subject, overturning 110 years of research.

I specifically told you that the street car is a photon of light and the thought experiment is to jump onboard that. If I leave a point at the speed of light and you leave later you will never catch me. Special relativity has nothing to do with this. This is a classical d=rt problem. Furthermore, from the point of the destination, you will not see me till I get there. I can't shine a flashlight ahead of me because I'm the light ray itself. Flashlights riding on photons are verboten.