Don't dictate beliefs

Don't dictate beliefs

There are 11177 comments on the The Star Press story from Sep 5, 2012, titled Don't dictate beliefs. In it, The Star Press reports that:

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Star Press.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10472 Jan 6, 2013
"Robert J. Nemiroff, assistant professor of physics at Michigan Technological University, responds.

First of all, it is not really known whether or not the universe started from a singularity. Our measurements can take us back only so far; ideas about the nature of the cosmos at the start of the big bang are mostly unproved conjecture.

Second of all, the concept of a black hole is only one type of solution to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, our best current theory of gravity. This reading of general relativity--known as the Schwarzschild solution--is thought to give an accurate description of the gravity near an isolated, nonrotating black hole, as well as the 'normal' gravity near the earth and throughout our solar system.

But other solutions to general relativity are known to exist, including ones that apply to a whole universe. These alternative solutions typically assume that the early universe was perfectly uniform so that there were no places for black holes to form, even if the density were so great that particles were "cheek by jowl." The most popular class of general relativity solutions applying to the entire cosmos are known as Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions. These formulations appear to describe correctly our expanding universe; that is, they demonstrate how objects not held together by local forces (such as the electromagnetism that bonds atoms in molecules or the gravity that keeps the earth intact) stream away from one another in a predictable manner.

Still, there is room in the theories for some of the matter in the universe to be hidden in black holes that might have formed from local, unusually dense regions in the very early universe. These black holes could conceivably contribute to the large amount of dark matter that exists in the universe. Astronomers are therefore diligently searching for these objects. In one scenario discussed by Jeremiah Ostriker of Princeton University and his collaborators, black holes as massive as one million times the mass of our sun might be common throughout the universe and still be nearly invisible. Although other black holes might come out of some big bang models involving quantum mechanics, a common expectation by cosmologists is that only elementary particles survived these early epochs of our universe."

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10473 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>From your website:

"Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion”(man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys."

When it comes to science, I'll listen to the scientists.

You should too: you know that ju-ju and superstitious mumbo jumbo are not scientific.
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis"

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10474 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>To KJV:
(and) To Langoliers:

Please spoon feed poor Khatru, please change his (her?) diaper and please do all his (her?) research. Poor Khatru was never good at ploughing.
As Bill Cosby would say "brain damage!"

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10475 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
To KJV:
(and) To Langoliers:
Please spoon feed poor Khatru, please change his (her?) diaper and please do all his (her?) research. Poor Khatru was never good at ploughing.
You'll have to put that Bible down first.

At least you've stopped threatening us with eternal torture.

Looks like IANS mockery of your "scary chicken on a stick" works.

I'm sure you'll agree that he makes a good comparison between your ju-ju and that of a tribal witch-doctor.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#10476 Jan 6, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis"
How strange.

You have the very same formatting problems that KJV has.

Wait a minute!

Could it be?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10477 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to put that Bible down first.
At least you've stopped threatening us with eternal torture.
Looks like IANS mockery of your "scary chicken on a stick" works.
I'm sure you'll agree that he makes a good comparison between your ju-ju and that of a tribal witch-doctor.
"How can heaven and hell coexist? How can any sane and loving human being be happy in heaven knowing that millions of people, innocent or not, are being tortured for eternity? This heaven is a place void of empathy, an asylum for psychopaths. How is this heaven good?”~ Anonymous
KJV

United States

#10478 Jan 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The probability that the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state and that life has evolved are both well over 99.9999%. The details are less well established, but even those are being elucidated every day.

YOU are the one that claimed a probability calculation. What the assumptions are for that calculation, what the dependencies are, etc, are ALL not given. Instead, independence of variables *known* to be dependent is assumed and that alone disqualifies the calculation.

A *real* calculation of the probabilities is way beyond anything *anyone* can do simply because we do not know the parameter space relevant or what affects the location of our universe within that space.
I like the way this guy put it so I'll quote him.

"OKThen

April 1, 2011
Ethan
You give a very good and balanced summary.
In particular, I agree when you say,“All the alternatives fail miserably, including Tired Light, Hoyle’s Steady-State Theory, and Alfven’s Plasma Cosmology.” I quibble only with the word “All”; but yes, the major alternative theories have failed miserably.
Nor am I even proposing the version of the cyclic model such as Penrose or Steinbardt propose.(See for example Apr 2011, Scientific American: The Inflation Debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? By Paul J. Steinhardt)
I agree that the big bang theory is a pragmatic framework within which a great many subtheories have been tested and continue to be tested. Nevertheless, I find the big bang theory inadequate.
The plethora of dogmatic statements of endorsements is the first problem. e.g.“there’s a 99.9% chance that the Big Bang was correct from when the Universe was a tiny fraction of a second old up to the present day”
Physics has much to understand before any theory of the universe can claim even 50% certainty. The unknowns include:
– dark matter
– dark energy
– inflation
– extra spatial dimensions
– the nature of time (e.g. F-theory)
– quantum gravity
– baryon asymmetry
– quantum vacuum (including phase changes & Unruh’s law)
– the life cycle of galaxies (including globular clusters & very old nearby stars)
– new insights from general relativity
– appropriate use of complexity of mathematical models
– problems with standard model of elementary particles
– the shape of our visible universe (perhaps a 3-sphere)
– might our visible universe really be anisotropic
Classical physics can’t predict the results of a planned automobile collision; hence the need for experiment (e.g. crash test dummies). Yet you are 99.9% confident in the big bang theory from “from when the Universe was a tiny fraction of a second old up to the present day”. Such belief is naive.
Without new experiment and observation, massive amounts of new evidence; there can not be resolution to any of the above open questions in physics. There is always conflicting evidence; otherwise why do science. Without new data; theory will be stuck in silos. Adherants of an 11-dimensional space time versus big bang theorist of an infinitely flat 4-d spacetime universe; etc."

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10479 Jan 6, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Say umm KK was not this discussion about your comment about "not changing is bad?" Then a list of items was posted showing something's are better left unchanged. Then some idiot pointed out that these thing do change which was then pointed out yes they do change but it does not do life on earth any favors in fact could easily wipe out life on earth, and now your response is
"We'll all be dead long before there is any catastrophe"
That's kind of off track from your statement "not changing is bad"
So in a few pages you now say don't worry we'll all be dead before one of those changes can kill us?
Lets get it straight.
You said "not changing is bad"
KJV said "not always, showing a few item that would most likely kill mankind if they changed"
You respond "don't worry we'll all be dead before one of those changes can kill us"
LOL
You skipped a lot of the stuff in between and ignored the entire meat of the discussion. Kudos on demonstrate you still don't know how to keep up.
KJV

United States

#10480 Jan 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Absolute proof is unavailable in the real world. It is restricted to mathematics. Bu tthe evidence supporting the Big Bang is such that we *know* that the universe has expanded from a hot, dense state. So the Big Bang is true.

[QUOTE]There is no proof and no evidence of spontaneous life, again you're still at zero.

[QUOTE]There is no proof of the theory of evolution. Again you're still at zero."

Life has changed over time. That alone shows evolution has happened. The particular mechanisms are still being discussed, but the fact is that species change over time.

[QUOTE]Now what was it that gets you off the zero?"

Actual evidence in the real world.

[QUOTE]http://www.reasons.org/ articles/articles/fulfilled-pr ophecy-evidence-for-the-reliab ility-of-the-bible
"Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105."
"

Except, of course, that there were no unambiguous prophesies made ahead of time.
"Flaws in the Big Bang Scenario

There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:

(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote:“There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state”(1983, 40).

(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).

(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case."

https://m.christiancourier.com/articles/133-t...
KJV

United States

#10481 Jan 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Absolute proof is unavailable in the real world. It is restricted to mathematics. Bu tthe evidence supporting the Big Bang is such that we *know* that the universe has expanded from a hot, dense state. So the Big Bang is true.

[QUOTE]There is no proof and no evidence of spontaneous life, again you're still at zero.

[QUOTE]There is no proof of the theory of evolution. Again you're still at zero."

Life has changed over time. That alone shows evolution has happened. The particular mechanisms are still being discussed, but the fact is that species change over time.

[QUOTE]Now what was it that gets you off the zero?"

Actual evidence in the real world.

[QUOTE]http://www.reasons.org/ articles/articles/fulfilled-pr ophecy-evidence-for-the-reliab ility-of-the-bible
"Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105."
"

Except, of course, that there were no unambiguous prophesies made ahead of time.
"One thing is certain: one is required to lay aside his “common sense” in order to accept the foregoing incomprehensible speculation. None of these materialistic theories has any credibility—biblically or scientifically. Some scientists should take a hint from the Scottish skeptic David Hume:“I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”(1932, 187).

Dr. Mart de Groot, who views the big bang concept as “a possible way of understanding the opening statement of the Bible,‘in the beginning God ...’,” admits that there is an objective difficulty to the theory. And it is this: even if the “primordial matter” exploded, he says, resulting in our present universe,“what is the origin or source of this matter?” He confesses that “probably the most serious shortcoming of the big bang is its inability to go back to the very beginning of time and space”(1999, 20-23). The theory has far more shortcomings than the matter of “matter commencement”!"

https://m.christiancourier.com/articles/133-t...
KJV

United States

#10482 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>By his own admission, Hedonist was a theology school dropout (or reject, I forget which) from 40 years ago, lol.
Well lets see he dropped out 40 years ago Started collage around 20 years old. So this 60 year old non educated man who spends his life on threads like this is trying to show off that he blew it and should have stayed in school.

I get it.
KJV

United States

#10483 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Amen brother!
Thank you sir.
KJV

United States

#10484 Jan 6, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>You have made up evidence. This is not the same as real evidence.
I have made up evidence and then some how got all these other scientist find it and publish papers on it. Damn I'm good!
KJV

United States

#10485 Jan 6, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>The ancestor to the chicken, just one or two mutations short of being a chicken, now extinct, had this same protein.

The chicken egg came before the chicken. Deal with it.
"The ancestor to the chicken, just one or two mutations short of being a chicken, now extinct, had this same protein."

Where is your link?
KJV

United States

#10486 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>That "prophecy" was forcibly fulfilled, also called "self fulfilling" prophecies because believers who wanted it fulfilled made it so. It would be the same as "prophesying" that I will be eating pizza sometime in the future.
What?
You're really going there?
Derek she is definitely a none of the first church atheist.
KJV

United States

#10487 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Where is it? We keep asking, you never provide, you evade and dodge or outright ignore the request. Until you present evidence then you are the liar, not me.
Sorry "none" I'm too lazy to go and repost all that stuff. So it ain't happening
If it would change anything I might waste my time, but you're to far of a lost cause. It's all on these threads if you like or you can study and use the web to find it all.

KJV

United States

#10488 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Demonstrate how what I really said was a lie.
"the chemicals required for the formations of protocells, the ones that can become life according to our understanding of it, are consumed by modern life forms. Thus, the chemicals themselves are consumed before forming any protocells. "

Your claim here is no new life can form because all the chemicals required for life are being eaten before they can form more life. What a crock!
There are tons of that stuff out there not getting eaten. And how about all the lab experiments were nothing is around to eat the chemical. PURE BS. KK

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10489 Jan 6, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Well lets see he dropped out 40 years ago Started collage around 20 years old. So this 60 year old non educated man who spends his life on threads like this is trying to show off that he blew it and should have stayed in school.
I get it.
Wow, you really are quick to make judgments about people with little to no information. How very Christian of you!

I changed majors from theology to business management, had a whole career in IT management, retired in my mid-40s. Lived out in the country on a little horse ranch for about 12 year breeding and training Paso Finos. Retired from ranching last year and now live in a highrise in Atlanta.

As you should have noticed, I'n not on these threads too much during the week. Yes, I'm retired (for the 2nd time) and about 60, but I stay pretty busy volunteering with various civic efforts in the city.
KJV

United States

#10490 Jan 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>We'll all be dead long before there is any catastrophe, with the exception of a possible meteor collision but those we can only predict out a few days in advance.

The other changes are not catastrophic. The Earth's poles shift all the time, it "wobbles," as someone else described quite aptly, a few years ago they feared it may flip because the "wobble" had been slightly more than usual ... it was a false alarm but meh, having to recalibrate "North" on everything wouldn't be that huge a deal.

You can't face facts, the only "normal" in the universe, the only constant that is not mathematical, the only thing that remains the same is change, everything changes, and the strong things change with the universe. Anything that does not change fails every time.
You said not changing is a bad thing

As far as mankind is concerned that list I gave you is a list of things that better not change much or we'll be in for it.
KJV

United States

#10491 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Aplogetics.

Strange how you have no problem believing the Bible when it says that creation took 6 days but you refuse to believe the Bible when it gives a ratio of 3:1 for Pi.

I always said that you guys just make it all up as you go along.

Looks like I'm right.

Now, where are these corrected Bibles that you say exist?
Are you back on Pi?

You must be too stupid to understand
A proper explanation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr replaytime 61,038
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 9 hr Eagle 12 452
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 hr Subduction Zone 28,307
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 13 hr Dogen 2,628
Deconversion Mon Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Mar 14 superwilly 258,490
More from around the web