@xxovercastxx

Okay, I'll bite. Since you don't want to discuss what the bible says, I'll delve into your world. Do you believe there is only one Universe, many Universes or infinite Universes? Do you only believe in material reality, or do you think there could be other dimensions or planes of existence that transcend it? Basically, what is your cosmology/model of reality? How do you think consciousness works? Do you believe in morality and how do you determine what it is?

9 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

@spoco2
Ignore my crappy post above - I didn't take the time to even clarify what I was trying to say. And the links were just meant to illustrate that there were differing views - I didn't look at them very closely, and I didn't say I believed what they were selling.

And don't get me wrong. Most of the facts I have are "hearsay".
And yes, most of theorist's reasoning is utter crap - the flag thing especially

It's not that I'm fanatically saying it's false. You're right, I don't have the facts! I also don't have the background to sort through and divide the real facts from the bullshit. Although I have a love of science, physics and cosmology - I have no formal training. I read quite a few books on theory, plus biographies but I keep it light for getting lost in the mathematics. I also haven't read/found any good books on this subject.

You are also correct, so much miss-information is put out there by theorists. And maybe I've been jaded by lies to the point of not knowing who to trust in life. I'm not trusting the theorists, I'm just being cautious of everything I hear. I don't believe one over the other. I just choose to defer my belief for another time (does that even make sense?) I will continue to defer until either I have time to research it for myself properly or until I come across something by someone I can trust (by merit) that makes sense to me.

Am I stubborn? Yes, I am. I can't help it.
But don't worry, I'm not calling fake. I'm definitely NOT siding with the theorists. I'm just sitting back and watching, waiting for that one thing to spark, where I can say "Bazinga," that's it, that's the piece I needed".
Don't get too frustrated with me, I'm reasonable and I evolve
One day I'll find the time to locate the real facts.

How... How do you... How old is he? How do you reach that age without ever having opened a book on science or cosmology? Or hell, Wikipedia? That's right, I forgot. Conservapedia.

Jesus, Bill. You're fucking pathetic.

Completely agree. I was passively christian until I hit puberty, when my more critical mind caused me to become 'agnostic'. While in that phase, I still had a tiny fear that some deity I didn't understand -that many many people believed in- might still in fact be real and looking to punish me for my thoughts. It was not until I studied the Bible in college, and read the thing cover to cover (OK, so maybe a skipped a beggat or two) that those fears were finally assuaged.

If you've read the whole thing, you'd have to be pretty uncritical, or pretty brainwashed to believe that this stuff was written by a God. It's a fascinating read, full of death, violence, adventure, betrayal, lust, perversion, treachery, and other elements of good story telling; but it is just that, storytelling.

It's obvious that this was written by many different humans. There are so many contradictions and the style of writing varies so much from book to book, passage to passage. It's illogical, nonsensical, and full of really ignorant guesses at cosmology. Also, the protagonist (YHWY) is so random, jealous, ill tempered, genocidal and corrupt. This is not the way an all good, all knowing, all powerful God writes his autobiography. If this God were real, he'd be a complete nutjob.

Shimfish,what data do you require? Do you need figures to show how studying religion 24/7 has advanced the fields of Cosmology,Physics,Biology,Genetics,medicine,chemistry or any other science? Well, you will find it hard to find, as their time is taken up with prayer and procreation. Ofcourse there are religious people who are scientists, but Hollyeooddigitals comments refer to the Haredi in the video, and they are valid.My only addition would be that it is not only the number 1 problem in the region, religious bigotry and dogma is the number 1 problem globally. Education is the answer, not bronze age mythology.

>> ^deathcow:
I'd rather there be a creator, there be an intention for this universe to exist specifically to evolve and house life. I dont subscribe to any Earth religions though. There in fact does have to be a WHY... I belive cosmology, probing the big bang, will get us eternally closer to an answer. The cosmic microwave background is a last scattering surface for electromagnetic energy, but it is transparent to gravitational energy. Cosmologists/physicists are attempting to map the earliest universe with gravitational waves next. I hope it works and they can take our understanding further with it.


There has to be a "how", there most certainly does not need to be a "why". You only need a "why" if you can't subscribe to life having no purpose, that was it just random chance and there is no ulterior motive for its existence. Which is fine, you don't need to subscribe to that but there it is, no "why"

I'd rather there be a creator, there be an intention for this universe to exist specifically to evolve and house life. I dont subscribe to any Earth religions though. There in fact does have to be a WHY... I belive cosmology, probing the big bang, will get us eternally closer to an answer. The cosmic microwave background is a last scattering surface for electromagnetic energy, but it is transparent to gravitational energy. Cosmologists/physicists are attempting to map the earliest universe with gravitational waves next. I hope it works and they can take our understanding further with it.

Red vs. blue shift is used to measure the speed of objects relative to earth, whatever their distance.
I think what the sarcastic post meant to illustrate was the shrouded cloak of sciencey words and ideas used to give (false)credibility to the intelligent design movement in the eyes of the common-man(tm).

Most infuriating thing about these Bill'o "interviews" is that they never touch on the issues at hand.
You can't jump between biology and cosmology for excuses and never give the chance to defend either front.
If he had his mouth stapled shut and gave the fair time for Dawkins to explain him the basics of biology and evolution, he would lose the argument then and there and he knows this.
I don't really understand the masochism of Dawkins when he knows he'll never be given the opportunity to get his word out with bullies like Bill-o.

I WAS KIDDING! Did you not read the next line? However, I think being specialtive of data that comes from the distant past is prudent. If one did not question the geocentric model like Copernicus and Galileo, but rather agreed with the Aristotelian consensus would we be better off? Most of the tools we have for looking at the distant past are murky at best, so while useful always have to be taken in stride, which is what I have been saying all along.

Radio age dating, and stellar cartagrophy have all shown themselves to be off by large margins at times. For instance, the believed age of the universe has increased 5 billion years in my life time...a very large number when trying to make other measurements like cosmic inflation and other dependent things. Small and large variances would undo very fundamental understood physical properties of the universe. If the age of the universe changes by any amount, any new theory trying to explain cosmological inflation has to be reworked from scratch...or at the very least re-propagated.

I never said throw it out, I said approach it with cautious skepticism, the same would go for radio carbon dating. It is good for estimations and approximations, but the fact is the data sets could be wildly inerrant. For general things like tectonic tenancies and the slow moment of things overtime, this isn't as big of a deal. But for making very detailed climatic predictions about the overall direction and the results of said direction of the weather is putting to much credence in the information at hand.

If the science is bogus, it doesn't necessarily have to be disproven in a timely manor either. It was nearly two thousands years from Aristotle to Galileo, and that was with something that could bee seen, this can never been seen. Your mistaken my faith in God for my ability to use reason as well. I started an atheist and have a firm back round in science and scientific thinking. The modern movement of science by consolidation more resembles church that true empirical thought. I find that true science is dead, and what is alive now is conjecture by consensus. The empirical model is dead. Science now has more faith than most would care to comment on. Belief in aliens because of the large amount of space and large amount of planets is evidence of faith before empiricism. If you want faith, church is ok, but science is chop full of non-agnostic positions.

My desire is to not be ignorant. I find the current fear mongering as a play on ignorance. I find people defending the radical data as definitive as naive. But I also see pollution as a problem that should be corrected if not just for the sake of doing it or the planet; but for breath of fresh air in the morning, a commodity that is hard to price.

Try not to be jaded by people you assume I am like and look at my argument more fully next time. I don't think you read exactly what I said but you read more what you wanted to read from someone named like I am named. I also was very crass and kinda rude to start off my comments in that thread, so maybe I had it coming

Anyway, it is a problem that is bigger than any one of us, so us calling each other names or mocking each others believe systems is not going to get us anywhere. I will endeavor to not get sarcastic when on a mountain dew high if you will read my objections for what they really are, based in rational skepticism. When confronted with skepticism, my position is to remain as agnostic about projections about what I am skeptical about until that thing is resolved; it is the only logical position.

In reply to this comment by asynchronice:
"O shit, they had climatologists in the 300,000BC"

LOL...you've got to be fucking kidding me. Let's throw out carbon dating too. It's unverifiable! You weren't there ! And how do they know what stars are made of ? They can't verify it !

I don't get the defensiveness here. No debate corporations will use this data for profit. They will use ANYTHING for profit. And governments will always want to tax more of their citizenry. It has no import/relevance on the scientific facts being given. And if the science is bogus, then it will be disproven. PERIOD. That's just how it works. Just because you're spoiled and think the scientific community has to give you a day, a time, and detailed description of what will happen, isn't a reason to dismiss it. If you want that, go back to church.

It weirds me out that people go to great lengths to show how it is all a conspiracy to instill fear and get money; just look at the facts, and make up your own goddamn mind. And if you choose to be willfully ignorant, then do people a favor and stay out of the debate. Some of us actually want to understand what's going on.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'martin reese, cosmology, aliens, biology' to 'martin rees, cosmology, aliens, biology' - edited by schmawy

I get that this guy is doing satire, but there's a line between satire and a pure straw man--and NonStampCollector took a flying leap over that line in this video.

In the first place, any halfway competent theist using those arguments will of course make it clear that these argument do not necessarily support any one religion over the others. This is how Aquinas used similar arguments in the 13th century, and it's how theistic thinkers deploy them today. They are only intended to weaken the atheist position generally. NonStampCollector doesn't even attempt to address them on this level.

In the second place, it's asinine to assume that every religion is the same--either with regard to how well they are supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments, or how much or little they incline their followers to religious violence. As it happens, the Hindu has a much better case than the Christian or Muslim for saying that these arguments support his religion. Brahma, unlike the God of Abraham, does not have a seemingly petty concern with particular tribes of humans or become angry or feel wronged because of sin. Brahma is described as illimitable, all-embracing. Brahma is a more cosmic God, better supported by the discovery of the age and vast distances of the universe.

Other Gods or divine realities so supported include Plato's Form of the Good, the Logos of the Stoics, the God of Leibniz or Spinoza, and even the God of A. N. Whitehead (co-author of the Principia Mathematica with acclaimed atheist Bertrand Russel) and Charles Hartshorne.

Tendencies toward violence differ considerably between religions. The Hindu and the worshiper of Amun have no reason to get into a fight about religion. Hinduism is not a single religion, but thousands of intertwined religions which have co-existed peacefully for thousands of years. A plurality of religious beliefs and practices--including atheism--has long been not fought by Hindus, but embraced. Only when aggressive evangelistic monotheisms actively attack Hinduism does anything like an instinct to violence come into play--and even then it tends to arise mainly in extreme circumstances. (As in Orissa in 2008, when the assassination of a Hindu leader by Christian Maoist extremists sparked a riot and violence by members of both religions, or the year before, in 20007, when Christians deliberately provoked Hindus by .) Likewise, there is no reason anyone would go to war over Amun. It would not be appropriate to describe the religions of Egypt as tolerant--the word implies a perception of annoyance or burden in allowing others to co-exist, when co-existence was assumed as a daily fact of life. In fact, the priests of Amun welcomed Zeus-worshiping Greeks to the oracle of Amun at Siwa, which once declared Alexander the Great to be the son of Amun.

But, of course, NonStampCollector doesn't actually know any of this. He just assumes, like nearly all the New Atheists, that all the other religions in the world are more or less just like the ones he's most familiar with. Makes it easier that way; you don't have to do as much studying or thinking.

Well, space-time coordinate of one of those space-time manifold charts (covering the space-time manifold) is one object that you certainly can "travel" back and forth(remember Godel formal PDE's solution for Einstein equation ). However , what realy counts and play the role of the Newtonian time in general Einstein relativity is the unique proper-time of a given event !(this can not be back!). Note that still remains a problem to "adjust" colectivelly the proper time of several geodesics associated to the motion of several particles moving in the back ground of a given relativistic gravitational field (The twin paradox has not been fully understood !).Let me explain better : In the Einstein framework , one gives a certain energy-momentum configuration (the "Sun") (mathematically a tensor of rank two in relation to the Local dipheomorffism space-time manifold group) in the (tensorial bundle) of space-time manifold :a object from the beginning possesing solely a differentiable topological structure and after that (and if compatible with the manifold topology-Chern /Gauss theorem constraint, Riemann completeness ,etc..), one determines the topologically compatible local metric structure of the smooth space-time by means of the famous Einstein Equations.If everything is smooth from a geometrical point of view , one starts the prediction of the "falling" bodies trajectories in this gravitational field throught the solution of the Boundary-Value Sturm liouville like problem associated to the geodesics non linear equations (you should know the beginning and the final point of the falling body trajectory into the space-time ,not the initial point and its "initial velocity" as in Newton Equation).Now one can make further steps on the Einstein program by exchanging the mater-energy Einstein's source by boundary ad-hoc conditions simulating point sources -delta sources-(not dipheomorffism covariant) ,like the Schwartz-Schild solution for Einsteinian particle motions around the Sun), and thus leading to a rich mathematical universe ( astronomical and astrophysical/cosmological observable ?)

@rougy
Oh, you mean the "When God created the heavens and the earth in six days" part?
You consider that scientific?

Keep in mind I'm not a Biblical literalist. But yeah. Insofar as it was written by a semiliterate goatherder thousands of years ago, yeah, our current scientific understanding matches the Christian conception of creation. It doesn't match the Buddhist one.

When you speak of life appearing relatively recently, you realize that you are only speaking of our own planet.
You can't say the same for other planets, nor can you say the same for other solar systems in other galaxies.

Oh, sure, it's possible (even likely) that life evolved (or created, take your pick) on other planets before Earth. But if you've studied cosmology, there's a large period of time that having any life at all existing would be rather dubious (without divine intervention, I suppose).

Having any period of time without life is bad for Buddhism, in fact.

I'm sorry, but to claim that the Big Bang theory proves Christianity correct and Buddhism incorrect is speculative at best, and very arrogant.

Prove? Did I say prove? I said supported once, and favors another time. Which is the appropriate level of confidence to use in this case. If you were held at gunpoint and forced to pick between Christian and Buddhist worldviews on the ultimate nature of reality, based on our current scientific understanding of the universe, a rational person would pick Christian.

(And if you'd say neither, you've fallen off the logic wagon a couple steps back.)

In short, you have no proof. You are drawing a conclusion based on limited facts, the same as me, the same as everybody else, and your conclusion is, at best, nothing more than a guess, or a wish.

Which is why I never used the word proof, but argued instead from the fact that the evidence favors life after death instead of extinction.

The facts are 1 to 0, as it were. You can certainly believe in what you'd like against the evidence (taking it on blind faith as it were), but you can't claim it's especially scientific to do so.

and

6) I think the Christian notion of life after death is more plausable than the Buddhist one, since the Christian cosmology of a creation with a beginning and end is supported by scientific facts, but Buddhist cosmology that the world has existed eternally and we've all been born an infinite number of times doesn't match science at all.