Tags for this video have been changed from 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, Huygens, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' to 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, Huygens, Laplace, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' to 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, Huygens, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'God, Gaps, Neil deGrasse Tyson, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' to 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' - edited by messenger

>> ^A10anis:
@ Shinyblurry's post starting with "Your welcome" (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)

Your hypothetical story used to make a point about how you make yourself feel better was quite disturbing. Under the same logic you employed there.. if someone told you "kill 1000 babies" and all suffering would end for eternity, your story would only encourage an idiot to be a horrific murderer because of some deranged persons words.

Actually, the point of the hypothetical was to show the sloppy reasoning inherent in digging for treasure in a spot marked other than X.

>> ^A10anis:
You state "The only thing which is stopping you is pride.". No, it's the use of intelligence.
* It's not believing things because they make me feel better, or allowing me to think less because i can say magic did it.

So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's the love of actually thinking about situations from a 'likely/unlikely true based on scientific reasoning' position, which is what drives human advancements forward.

Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's not naively thinking or pretending there are great things to learn from a disgusting book of prejudice, torture, fear and horror (i.e. kill your loved ones because you hear voices or let towns rape your daughters because they're of less value than a male stranger).

The bible, apart from the revelation of God, is a historical account of the actions of fallen men. Men who were sinners and sometimes did things which were morally wrong. That there was no effort to cover up those sins is a point in favor, not against.


>> ^A10anis:
* It's not believing claims that a book is an accurate account of history and the universe, when it gets the most basic things a God would know wrong, coincidentally these claims are just the way things would appear to a human's untrained eye (sun revolving around the planet).

If you want to address the accuracy of the bible, you must first accurately portray the bible. My guess is that you have only studied the bible through the lens of skeptics. Do you know the actual history of how this idea came about? The bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth, but it was interpreted that way by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Claudius proposed a theory of geocentricity, which at the time, was far more accurate than the existing theory of heliocentricity, and he interpreted certain passages of scripture to support his assertion. These passages, specifically Joshua 10:12-14, and Psalm 93:1, do not teach geocentricity at all, but were taken out of context by Claudius and others to promote the theory.

>> ^A10anis:
* It's because the bible (unbelievable in it's own right), once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions.

The scientific theories which contradict the literal truth of the bible, such as the theory of deep time, macro evolution, and abiogenesis, are not subject to empirical testing. You cannot prove these theories in a lab. They are inferences based on circumstantial evidence, and are not truly scientific. You must *believe* them, and real science is based on knowledge, not belief.

>> ^A10anis:
Quote "Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.". Seems like not much has changed, except your preferences.

Your preaching is nothing more than the same unjustified crap that those who don't have facts to support them continue to make. IMO you've either given up on your critical analytical abilities, or you're a troll copy/pasting.. given how similar your sentences are to other preachers.

What changed is that I fairly investigated the claims of Jesus Christ, instead of dismissing them based on a superficial knowledge of Christianity. When I did that, I received supernatural evidence that they were true.

>> ^A10anis:
Christianity is a sacrificial cult, full of unsubstantiated claims.

Your gross mischaracterization not withstanding, how have you investigated the claims of Jesus Christ?

>> ^A10anis:
Jesus's so called miracles appear in many other religions, usually descriptively to the letter.

Have any actual evidence to support this claim? Be sure to include the original sources and not just the claims of skeptics.

>> ^A10anis:
Your beliefs come from a time where women were valued as little more than a discard-able possessions.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Scripture teaches that woman have the same value in the eyes of God as men do. God has assigned us different roles, but he shows no partiality between men and women.

>> ^A10anis:
And If your God did exist, then said God can go fuck themselves, as i have no desire to follow the direction and teachings of a psychopathic asshole.

I would suggest it is the distorted lens through which you see God that informs your negative opinion of Him.

>> ^A10anis:
PS: although I'm not censoring myself too much, it's not my primary intention to offend you (but don't care too much either), just can't stand how people spouting this type of content can think they 'should' be taken seriously.

Atheists rarely censor themselves when they speak to Christians. Nothing you've said here is unexpected. I do not take offense at what you said; on the contrary, I care about you as a human being made in the image of God, and I see you as being worthy of love and respect. My hope is that you come to know the love of Jesus Christ. You simply have no experience of God at the moment, but God is willing to show you He is there at any time. He loves you more deeply than you understand. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

^Evolution has been validated by experiment to the same extent, if not more so, as quantum theory. There is no national debate about quantum mechanics because most people don't even know where to begin.

The only reason there is a national debate about evolution is that most people (erroneously) believe they understand it. You don't see creationists complaining about (or supporting) quantum mechanics because honestly how many creationists even understand enough of it to know why they should be for or against it?

Theres actually a lot of people with contrary theories to quantum mechanics. The string theorists are one example. Quantum mechanics is not *the* answer, it is just the best answer we have so far. In another 50 years it will be replaced or expanded upon just as Newtonian mechanics was. The same is true for evolution and every other scientific theory.

Science never has, and probably never will give us "the truth." It only provides models which enable us to make accurate predictions. The models of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Newton were all "wrong" yet they could accurately calculate the orbit of planets just as one can with relativity or quantum mechanics--the latter models merely expanded on the accuracy.

1. The Planets Move (2000 B.C. – 500 B.C.)
A thousand years of observations reveal that there are stars that move in the sky and follow patterns, showing that the Earth is part of a solar system of planets separate from the fixed stars.

2. The Earth Moves (1543)
Nicolaus Copernicus places the sun, not the Earth, at the center of the solar system.

3. Planetary Orbits Are Elliptical (1605 – 1609)
Johannes Kepler devises mathematical laws that successfully and accurately predict the motions of the planets in elliptical orbits.

4. Jupiter Has Moons (1609 – 1612)
Galileo Galilei discovers that Jupiter has moons like the Earth, proving that Copernicus, not Ptolemy, is right. Copernicus believes that Earth is not unique, but instead resembles the other planets, all of which orbit the sun.

5. Halley's Comet Has a Predictable Orbit (1705 – 1758)
Edmund Halley proves that comets orbit the sun like the planets and successfully predicts the return of Halley's Comet. He determines that comets seen in 1531 and 1607 are the same object following a 76-year orbit. Halley's prediction is proven in 1758 when the comet returns. Unfortunately, Halley had died in 1742, missing the momentous event.

6. The Milky Way Is a Gigantic Disk of Stars (1780 – 1834)
Telescope-maker William Herschel and his sister Carolyn map the entire sky and prove that our solar system resides in a gigantic disk of stars that bulges in the center called the Milky Way. Herschel's technique involves taking a sample count of stars in the field of view of his telescope. His final count shows more than 90,000 stars in 2,400 sample areas. Later studies confirm that our galaxy is disk-shaped, but find that the sun is not near the center and that the system is considerably larger than Herschel's estimation.

7. General Relativity (1915 – 1919)
Albert Einstein unveils his theory of general relativity in which he proposes that mass warps both time and space, therefore large masses can bend light. The theory is proven in 1919 by astronomers using a solar eclipse as a test.

8. The Universe Is Expanding (1924 – 1929)
Edwin Hubble determines the distance to many nearby galaxies and discovers that the farther they are from us, the faster they are flying away from us. His calculations prove that the universe is expanding.

9. The Center of the Milky Way Emits Radio Waves (1932)
Karl Jansky invents radio astronomy and discovers a strange radio-emitting object at the center of the Milky Way. Jansky was conducting experiments on radio wavelength interference for his employer, Bell Telephone Laboratories, when he detected three groups of static; local thunderstorms, distant thunderstorms and a steady hiss-type static. Jansky determines that the static is coming from an unknown source at the center of the Milky Way by its position in the sky.

10. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (1964)
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discover cosmic microwave background radiation, which they suspect is the afterglow of the big bang. Their measurements, combined with Edwin Hubble's earlier finding that the galaxies are rushing away, make a strong case for the big bang theory of the birth of the universe.

11. Gamma-Ray Bursts (1969 – 1997)
The two-decade-long mystery of gamma-ray bursts is solved by a host of sophisticated ground-based and orbiting telescopes. Gamma-ray bursts are short-lived bursts of gamma-ray photons, which are the most energetic form of light and are associated with nuclear blasts. At least some of the bursts have now been linked with distant supernovae — explosions marking the deaths of especially massive stars.

12. Planets Around Other Stars (1995 – 2004)
Astronomers find a host of extrasolar planets as a result of improved telescope technology and prove that other solar systems exist, although none as yet resembles our own. Astronomers are able to detect extrasolar planets by measuring gravitational influences on stars.

13. The Universe Is Accelerating (1998 – 2000)
Unexpectedly, astronomers find that instead of slowing down due to the pull of gravity, the expansion of the universe at great distances is accelerating. If these observations are correct and the trend continues, it will result in the inability to see other galaxies. A new theory of the end of the universe based on this finding has been called the "big rip."

No problemo, Swampy. I enjoyed the exchange.

Although...the word agnostic comes from "gnōsis" which is Greek for knowledge. So if we're to ignore the contemporary parlance for agnosticism (as an interim position between atheist and believer) and use the correct definition, agnosticism relates to knowledge where atheism relates to belief in god.

In short, an agnostic believes that the existence of god cannot be known. It says nothing about the belief (itself) in god.

The two terms are mutually exclusive. So a person can be one of the following: a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic atheist.

Related to your comment about "belief system," one would be tempted to call the above codification as exactly that: a belief system. But "belief" is the wrong word, I think. It certainly shares a similarity to the scientific method: where things are categorized & codified all the time. So it's probably a system, all right, but it's more of a knowledge system, less of a belief system.

To a scientist, knowledge or fact is the seed of belief. More and more, lately, belief is the seed of knowledge and we think that's a very dangerous path to be on.

I'm reminded of the Royal Library of Alexandria, Egypt, which was founded in the 3rd century BC by Ptolemy II. It has been said that it contained as many as one million books (or scrolls) before it was burned to the ground by those in power (political, military, etc). Efforts to rebuild the library were ultimately for naught because by the 8th century AD, it was no longer a significant institution and had ceased to function in any important capacity.

So it took an entire 1100 years for mankind to go from an all-encompassing thirst for knowledge to complete apathy. That's a long, slow change in attitude. What value will we assign to knowledge one thousand years from now?

Anyway, forgive me for this tangent. See you on the sift!

regards,
-Shuac

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
I was a bit defensive for the underdog here because I am a former Christian. I suppose I would call myself agnostic now. Thanks for the polite and sincere replies.

>> ^Kraz:
Not to sound cheeky, but can you kindly point out where the bible states that the Earth revolves around the Sun? I've heard this before and it piques my interest because I know of no such passage.

It doesn't say anything about it, which is why the first popes took the most recent and celebrated work on geography and cosmology at the time, that of Ptolemy, as the base of their temporal doctrine. Later some Aristotle was thrown in retroactively by Thomas Aquinas, on the epistemological level. To make an analogy, this means that if the Christ would have been born in the 17th century, the first popes would have used Newton's Laws of motion and gravitation. They would have then condemned Einstein as a Heretic for his special and general Relativity.

>> ^Dadeeo:
This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact.

Theories explain known facts and predict (as yet) unknown facts. Theories are not facts, but their predictions can be taken as such until proven otherwise by experiments.

Too bad the theory's are constantly changing, yet every new one gets embraced as the truth without ever acknowledging the error of accepting the now former "defunct" theory.

Accepted scientific theories are never "defunct": they are expanded, generalized, etc. For example, euclidean geometry still has good predictive value under certain circumstances, as when the surface you examine is sufficiently flat. So are Newton's Laws of motion a good appromixation when speeds are not near the speed of light. Pythagoras' theorem still holds and his divisions of the octave still divide the octave.

How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors?

Scientists admit their errors all the time. Einstein admitted that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life. When they're stubborn, death makes their outdated views irrelevant, as with Einstein vs. Quantum mechanics. In religions, being dead makes you a Saint, and your opinions that of God himself (or close enough).

The Bible speaks of them is "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Wow, postmodernism at its 1st century's best! It's true that ultimate, absolute knowledge by observation is now thought to be impossible, but careful observation over many centuries has shown that those who don't learn can't know and are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

Of course a baby's eye develops as it grows from egg to full term, but does that prove the theory of evolution? No! Do creatures with varying degrees of eye function prove evolution? No! Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

Maybe they don't prove anything, but they don't need to, since empirical science doesn't need and can't have "proofs" in the same sense as logic and mathematics. There are facts and theories that explain the particular facts. The theory that explains all of the particular facts and that is consistent with the greatest number of other accepted theories in other fields of knowledge, is said to be the most adequate. It is not impossible that new facts should reveal a hitherto less adequate theory to now be the most adequate &mdash it happens &mdash and sometimes two or more theories will seem equally adequate. But not all theories can fit the facts and be globally consistent. Of course, if you reject all of science or all of empirical science, then you may as well go live with the Amish, 'cause it's not God that gave anyone the knowledge required to build the computers we both used to transmit these electronic messages.