The World Ending?

[Desosus]

I am saying there are some things I do believe that happen without a scientific reason though.

This is still argument from ignorance if you think about it.

1.) Explain the absence of futuristic "tourists". You know the governments would abuse time travel (if it existed) to try and change events in history to their own liking.

It has been theorized that you would need a pair of machines. Think of it like a telephone. To call someone they need to have a telephone too.

Because time isn't something tangible. Unlike using wormholes to possibly travel from one point to another point in the universe instantaneously, once an EXACT moment in time has happened, it happened. It no longer exists. Distance is a very real notion, time is not.

Er, actually it is. One analogy that might make it easier for you to understand is this:

Imagine that you were a being in a completely 2 dimensional observable universe. You have width and length but no height. Then imagine a 3 dimensional object, such as a sphere, passing through your universe. If it arrived from the top so to speak, at first it would be a point, then a small circle, then a bigger circle then the biggest circle at its widest diameter and would then shrink to a point again. This would all happen in one continuous flow. However a being which could sense all 3 spatial dimensions would be able to perceive the sphere as a complete object, all at the same time. Now extend the analogy to time. We can only perceive our universe an instant at a time. Time itself is passing through us as it were, a small interval at a time. If there were a hypothetical being in our universe which could see in 4 dimensions, it would experience everything that ever happened to it at the same time.

3.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology ... conjecture

Futuristic time travel is the only form of time travel that may in theory and sense be real or positive. So my previous statement is re-worded to say "Time travel to the past is impossible, why futuristic time travel is very(add 23 more of these) unlikely."

That article says nothing about time travel to the past being impossible as far as I can see. And as you can see it's called a conjecture, not a theory.

[cartmen838213]

It amazes me how off topic this forum gets sometimes.
Desosus you got that analogy from the book Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions? I had to read it in geometry

[Sanjar Khan]

What desosus calls Physics kingcrab calls God.
There. Solved.
Also everyone can stop pointing out how religion is poison and good for nothing, I think I pointed out the opposite. Most people who do have some vague connection between faith and the dark ages in their head where all that negativity stems from.

[Desosus]

What desosus calls Physics kingcrab calls God.
There. Solved.
Also everyone can stop pointing out how religion is poison and good for nothing, I think I pointed out the opposite. Most people who do have some vague connection between faith and the dark ages in their head where all that negativity stems from.

I never said it was good for nothing, I merely pointed out that it DOES poison everything and I stand by that. Give me an example of an important aspect of society or culture and I will probably be able to tell you how religious belief has been detrimental to it.

[KingCrab]

This is still argument from ignorance if you think about it.

Requesting a lock of this thread please. This won't end anytime soon.

[Desosus]

This is still argument from ignorance if you think about it.

Requesting a lock of this thread please. This won't end anytime soon.

As soon as the religious stop trying to force me to live a certain way, I'll stop "being a dick" about it.

[Sanjar Khan]

What desosus calls Physics kingcrab calls God.
There. Solved.
Also everyone can stop pointing out how religion is poison and good for nothing, I think I pointed out the opposite. Most people who do have some vague connection between faith and the dark ages in their head where all that negativity stems from.

I never said it was good for nothing, I merely pointed out that it DOES poison everything and I stand by that. Give me an example of an important aspect of society or culture and I will probably be able to tell you how religious belief has been detrimental to it.

The European expansion of the mid-seventeenth century, the foundation of modern politics, the increasing literacy rates within all social classes.
Science used to be natural philosophy, new fields including biology and physics were looked down on at first but started to flourish as people sought to understand God's creation. They were able to grow because universities were founded to train people in the art of law and theology. Religion made scientific research possible and gave people reason to pursue these various subjects.

Edit: Totally should have been the first thing I thought of: Art.

[KingCrab]

As soon as the religious stop trying to force me to live a certain way, I'll stop "being a dick" about it.

Not once did I say you couldn't live your life the way you want. You have a human right to decide what is right for you. I have not and will not in any way try to force Christianity on you. It is YOUR choice.

[boblol0909]

I have not and will not in any way try to force Christianity on you.

I don't think that was directed at you, just religious people in general.

[Desosus]

The European expansion of the mid-seventeenth century

The forced conversion of indigineous people to christianity.

the foundation of modern politics

Political rivals breaking down across religious lines and using religion as a label to massacre each other i.e. the troubles in northern ireland

the increasing literacy rates within all social classes.

Brought about in part because literacy rates at the time were already on the rise and the religious figured that if they were the ones teaching people how to read, they could control the material which they learned from decreasing the propagation of "radical" ideas.

Science used to be natural philosophy, new fields including biology and physics were looked down on at first but started to flourish as people sought to understand God's creation. They were able to grow because universities were founded to train people in the art of law and theology. Religion made scientific research possible and gave people reason to pursue these various subjects.

And yet we all know the various ways in which religion infects science and perverts it. From lobbyists trying to get science teachers to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in science classrooms to convicting galileo of heresy.

Edit: Totally should have been the first thing I thought of: Art.

Ever hear of iconoclasm?

[Ollieboy]

Requesting a lock of this thread please. This won't end anytime soon.

This isn't a flame war, it is a spirited debate. The thread remains open for business! You can't just request it's lock because you are losing

[Desosus]

I have not and will not in any way try to force Christianity on you.

I don't think that was directed at you, just religious people in general.

Correct.

[Ollieboy]

They both exist, one has more weight to it than the other due to proofs, and they have both influenced some pretty cool and some pretty bad shit. Argument summarised?

[Sanjar Khan]

Everything you say is done by people, the same way people use science to throw atom bombs, use gass on jews, practice illegal organ trade.

The forced conversion of indigineous people to christianity.

There never was an inquisition in colonial Brazil. Missionaries even petitioned for an alleviation of the encomienda system that was in place, with success. Religion didn't force anything here but clearly helped in giving the indigineous some relief from their Spanish overlords.

Brought about in part because literacy rates at the time were already on the rise and the religious figured that if they were the ones teaching people how to read, they could control the material which they learned from decreasing the propagation of "radical" ideas.

This is not the case at all. It encouraged people to read and interpret religious texts on their own. I don't know where you are getting that idea from. We're talking sixteenth-seventeenth century here, no one could control "the material". Book priviliges were hardly ever used.

Political rivals breaking down across religious lines and using religion as a label to massacre each other i.e. the troubles in northern ireland

I meant the founding of politics as the growing awareness of increasing layers of society of two different choices and their growing participation. The emerging political parties as a means to have a say over the way they want to run their own lives.

And yet we all know the various ways in which religion infects science and perverts it. From lobbyists trying to get science teachers to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in science classrooms to convicting galileo of heresy.

Yes, lobbyists = people. I was pointing out that religion was a major driving force in the quest for knowledge. Besides Galileo's conviction was, as so many church matters of the time, a political move. The Church is an institution, the Church does not equal religion.

Ever hear of iconoclasm?

Ever heard of the Sistine Chapel?

You claim science by itself is not good or bad, neither is religion. You say religion is always detrimental to society in some way, so is science.

[Desosus]

I don't recall saying that religion can't be used as a force for good.

[Sanjar Khan]

I merely pointed out that it DOES poison everything

I was pointing out that religion as a phenomenon an sich is as neutral as science, and the instrumental role the former played in the development of the latter as opposed to slowing it down. It's like the roman nobility raising their voices against Claudius' plan to include Gallic nobles in the senate, citing their past as enemies of Rome. The emperor pointed out that they had fought for ten years, and had been allies for a hundred.

[KingCrab]

Requesting a lock of this thread please. This won't end anytime soon.

This isn't a flame war, it is a spirited debate. The thread remains open for business! You can't just request it's lock because you are losing

I will deny that I was losing. There is a lack of evidence on the religion side, I can not deny that. However, for a 18 year old kid I thought I did pretty well.


But, if the debate is to continue, I shall participate. As for this moment, I'm sitting back and enjoying the show until I can do some research to further my knowledge.

[M1_Abrams]

Whoa! Gone for less than 24 hours and all of this!

Just throwin out replies to some quotes at random:

We determine whether something is true by finding empirical evidence, we don't just take it on faith that something is true.

There's still no empirical evidence for a Big Bang.

Oh, and that the dates of pretty much all Christian holidays coincide with Greek/Roman ones is a bit peculiar too.

Note that the Bible NEVER ONCE mentions Christmas or Easter as being important holidays or anything like that. They are just pagan holidays that the Catholics covered with Christianity centuries after the completion of the Bible. Not peculiar at all.

That proves absolutely nothing. You could write a book mentioning Obama, make it into a religion, and then 2000 years from now people could discover texts saying Obama is real.

Your second sentence contradicts your first. It proves (or depending on the source, at least provides strong evidence) that you didn't make up Obama, that he was a real person.

Just do a quick google search for "inconsistincies in the bible" and then come back and explain it to me.

These alleged inconsistencies come about when people stop thinking and start cherry-picking and ripping things out of context. For example:

From a website about this topic:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Why can't there be light at first, and then God later manifests the light in a flaming ball called the Sun?

GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

IT'S CALLED A RHETORICAL QUESTION!

and so on.

[Sanjar Khan]

I don't know what you are trying to say Abrams, not helped by the fact that you did not include names with your quotes.

[Desosus]

I merely pointed out that it DOES poison everything

I was pointing out that religion as a phenomenon an sich is as neutral as science, and the instrumental role the former played in the development of the latter as opposed to slowing it down. It's like the roman nobility raising their voices against Claudius' plan to include Gallic nobles in the senate, citing their past as enemies of Rome. The emperor pointed out that they had fought for ten years, and had been allies for a hundred.

Saying it poisons everything is not the same as saying that religion has never done a useful thing ever.

Science itself has no motive other than discovery of new things. Religions on the other hand do. They contain specific instructions, some of which are good and some of which are bad. Nobody ever decided to massacre entire other groups of people because science told them to.

[Desosus]

Whoa! Gone for less than 24 hours and all of this!

We determine whether something is true by finding empirical evidence, we don't just take it on faith that something is true.

There's still no empirical evidence for a Big Bang.

Ever hear of cosmic microwave background radiation?

[Sanjar Khan]

Yes, and neither did religion. Saying that science never told anybody to massacre other groups of people doesn't mean science has caused less death than religion. Your point was that religion is detrimental to society in some way, implying that science isn't. My point is that they have both been crucial, with religion having the added perk of having been crucial to science.

[Desosus]

Yes, and neither did religion. Saying that science never told anybody to massacre other groups of people doesn't mean science has caused less death than religion.

It sure as hell has saved a lot more.

[Sanjar Khan]

Saving lives is but one way to be useful to society, disregarding the fact that those would be imaginary numbers.

Saying it poisons everything is not the same as saying that religion has never done a useful thing ever.

You continuously attempt to trivialize the importance of religion in the positive sense with constructions like these.

[KingCrab]

Science itself has no motive other than discovery of new things. Religions on the other hand do. They contain specific instructions, some of which are good and some of which are bad. Nobody ever decided to massacre entire other groups of people because science told them to.

Same goes for religion. No major religion I know of talks about killing others. As you said earlier, it is not religion itself, but people using it as an excuse or means. Therefore, religion itself is not bad, but the few people who interpret it this way.

[KingCrab]

Yes, and neither did religion. Saying that science never told anybody to massacre other groups of people doesn't mean science has caused less death than religion.

It sure as hell has saved a lot more.

Some of said science can also wipe out our damn planet in a matter of minutes.

[Desosus]

A pretty damn important one I'd say.

[Sanjar Khan]

More important than any of the things I have mentioned?

[Desosus]

Same goes for religion. No major religion I know of talks about killing others. As you said earlier, it is not religion itself, but people using it as an excuse or means. Therefore, religion itself is not bad, but the few people who interpret it this way.

Deuteronomy 17:12

Leviticus 20:13

Leviticus 20:27

Exodus 21:15

Leviticus 20:9

Leviticus 20:10

Want me to carry on?

[Sanjar Khan]

Can we stop going in that direction? "Eugenics".