Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 72148	2006-09-01 02:53:00	Why is IT full of Athiests?	Greven (91)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
481951	2006-09-02 02:35:00	The thing with science is they make observations, come up with theories based on those observations and then test them. This can be a long involved process and until such time as a theory is proven beyond doubt its still a theory. Unlike religion. Because science hasn't arrived at a beyond all doubt tested theory yet doesn't mean its useless. its not the easiest thing to test is it? Because of that we should dismiss it and latch on to some totally outrageous ridiculous rubbish that religion states as true? I don't think so...Ok, let's ease off religion, and go with science and facts. You concede that "science hasn't arrived at a beyond all doubt tested theory yet". An admirable concession, given how much you're so anti religious answers but blindly accept unproved scientific answers. But those in the know, who understand a one true God who created the universe, and accept the bible as truth, KNOW the answers. We don't don't suffer the doubts that you do. The science and scientists you place your faith in, don't know the answers. About 50% of the industry believe it either way, and the other 50% are divided between one way or the other. Your inane question "God is not that great an answer to the ultimate beginning question either, after all, how did god come into existence?" has been seen before and rubbished. I mean think about it... does your pet dog, cat, iguana, goldfish etc know how YOU came into existance? No. Why the need to know? Similarily, why do we at this stage need to know how a superior being came to create his own existance? We only need to know that he did, and what effect it has on our lives. Take a look at an expert for example - the late Carl Sagan. Are you familiar with his Potato Man theory? If not let me know and I'll fill you in. And it's from a genius who didn't absolutely believe in the Creation of mankind by a superior intelect and power. He sure wasn't a muppet, like some Stop being a Noddy, and get over your extreme prejudice and arrogance to suggest that you're the universe's most powerful intelectual force!	Greg (193)
481952	2006-09-02 02:46:00	Actually it was i that pointed out that the god creating the universe concept merely creates a new question, and fails to answer any how did it ALL start enquiry. Your decision to compare it to our pets not caring who made us fails to answer the new question, it just distracts from it. My dog doesn't care where i came from because as a superior being, she has better things to be concerned with, like the itch on her back, if the noise in the kitchen means food is forthcoming, that sort of thing. I'm still sticking to the aliens populated the planet theory, not that that explains any beginning of time type question either.. but i just like it :thumbs:	personthingy (1670)
481953	2006-09-02 03:10:00	Actually it was i that pointed out that the god creating the universe concept merely creates a new question, and fails to answer any how did it ALL start enquiry.It's all about "need to know" :p	Greg (193)
481954	2006-09-02 06:04:00	You concede that "science hasn't arrived at a beyond all doubt tested theory yet" . An admirable concession, given how much you're so anti religious answers but blindly accept unproved scientific answers . But those in the know, who understand a one true God who created the universe, and accept the bible as truth, KNOW the answers . Blindly accept unproven scientific answers? Thats my whole point - I don't blindly accept anything . I'm content with accepting the fact that we don't yet know everything . And probably a whole lot of things . Its the opposite of blindly accepting . All religious people think you have to believe one thing or another - they can't seem to understand the concept of not having a firm view until one is offered that meets all the criteria and becomes established . Your last statement there is exactly my point . WE KNOW . Yeah right .	pctek (84)
481955	2006-09-02 06:44:00	@personthingy "I'm still sticking to the aliens populated the planet theory, not that that explains any beginning of time type question either.. but i just like it " Hmmmm lol, by any chance have you been to that website Richard Hoagland's "The Enterprise Mission".....its all about the theorys that aliens populated the earth :), also i love the stuff he did here www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm	nobody (5086)
481956	2006-09-02 06:54:00	Hmmmm lol, by any chance have you been to that website Richard Hoagland's "The Enterprise Mission".....its all about the theorys that aliens populated the earth :), also i love the stuff he did here www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htmNever even heard of the dude, but i'm about to look at his site........ Ta for that!	personthingy (1670)
481957	2006-09-02 06:58:00	Only vaguely related to the original topic - but perhaps indicative of my stand..... University of Washington The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well. Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (Gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following: First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. So with birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, and then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore extinct, leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God." THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"	Scouse (83)
481958	2006-09-02 07:00:00	Socrates: One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing. I believe firmly that it is utterly arrogant for any person to claim to "know" anything that cannot be demonstrated for certain. Evolution provides the simplest and most reasonable means of explaining the origins of life and appears to be heavily supported by observations. This does not make it absolute truth, simply a reasonable assumption. Quantum physics is an example of the very fringes of scientific discovery. When you actually look at it, the truth is that we don't understand it at all. We develop complex mathematical models involving waves because the predictions of these models appear to match what we observe. We know nothing of how it works, yet our model allows us to predict very accurately how things will occur. The same can be said of relativity. Over the period of my degree (soon to be finished) the greatest thing I have learned is that we can never truly understand how our world works. Humans instinctively like to understand our world. We do this by classifying and modelling what we observe. The truth is, however, that our models are just that. We must all accept our own limitations. Never presume to know.	TGoddard (7263)
481959	2006-09-02 07:10:00	A saying that I read in a book called "The Water Babies" sums it all up for me. " Do unto others as you would they would do unto you". If that sounds archaic, try, " Treat me right & I will treat you right", or Live & let live. If you leave Race, Colour & Creed out of things, then the above should be easy. PJ My Parents gave me that book when I was about 10 years old. Now that I am somewhat older I still remember some of it. Your quote seems a little wrong to me. Try "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We could try "Do unto others as they would do unto you only do it first!" I can't for the life of me remember whether that this quote comes from "The Water Babies" or not. I certainly remember there were "Efts and Newts" in the book. This book, I think, was my parents attempt at sex education.	Sweep (90)
481960	2006-09-02 08:04:00	What do you get if you cross an agnostic, an insomniac and a dyslexic? Someone who lies awake at night wondering if there really is a dog.	pctek (84)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11