Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The value of science to atheism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 _shakti_
Joined: 7/5/2011
Msg: 426
The value of science to atheismPage 18 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

The number skipping is now temporary.
Good to know! I sounded like a crazy person citing evidence that doesn't actually exist, lol..

Posts can be created and destroyed as well as transformed. See what happens when the LCE is broken ? ... :-)
Ahh, so it CAN be tampered with inside the system!! Lol..

But hey, at least you know I posted here.. unless you're going to deny it now? Lol..
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 427
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 9:31:59 AM


But hey, at least you know I posted here


I certainly do.



.. unless you're going to deny it now? Lol..


I couldn't do that, if I did, I could not deny the validity of their contents... LOL

I'll vouch you posted in this thread anytime :-) (you know the price).. .LOL
 ShineOnBrightly
Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 428
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 1:35:37 PM

But hey, at least you know I posted here.. unless you're going to deny it now? Lol..

I know you posted here, too because I read them, and your username is unusual enough to have made me notice! :) So, no you didn't dream it.....
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 429
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 4:42:37 PM
I think it's that spooky "observation" problem...you can't know both the position of her posts and the content of them. You can only know one or the other. As soon as you observe her posts, that affects things, and then things get all haywire.
 _shakti_
Joined: 7/5/2011
Msg: 430
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 8:06:20 PM
^^ You're talking about me like I'm not even here! Lol..


I'll vouch you posted in this thread anytime :-) (you know the price).. .LOL
It's starting to sound like the caramilk secret again, lol..

To bring this back on topic, science had nothing to do with my conversion from Christianity to atheism. It was the simple observation that no amount of prayer caused God to end the abuse I experienced on an almost daily basis at the hands of my mother. So I quit. And even as a small child listening to the pastor's sermons.. something just didn't add up. The glazed eyes all amening in unison kinda freaked me out too.

But I'm no longer an atheist, I realized that there were more ways to conceive of the divine, and I sought to learn about them all. I was hoping to find the religion that would become 'mine'.. but what I found instead is that they each contain a nugget of truth. Truths I like to collect. That doesn't gloss over the dark side of each religion, which is the reason I can't take any on as a whole.

To me religion is ego on a grand scale, and I'm all about transcending it... I don't see science as being in contrast to spirituality. Rather, they are two sides of the same coin. An attempt to understand this universe we live in. Why would I limit sources for that?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 431
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 8:13:44 PM
by the way, mr aries, I doubted if you did understand my point


I understood your point just fine. Your point was that your opinion is that none of us are real. Like a dream that 'feels real' but isn't.

There is nothing to continue on that line of opinion since it results in nothing at all but our non existence. We don't exist so not existing is really of no consequence and of no value. This is equivalent to saying that you, this topic, this message board, this website, on this server, at this internet provider, connected to this internet which I am connected to is entirely my own minds creation in an elaborate illusion of non existence.

Or, the alternative matrix theory that we are physically immobile and purely consciously driven while connected to a computer simulation or are in fact totally non existent at all as we are just bits in the RAM of a computer program.

This led me to see your association with "real" as the "real of a dream" as not a valid description since the feeling occurring within the dreams are really occurring and the common association to this feeling is a false coloring of the dream with an overly cohesive association of 'it seemed real'

Not sure how this shows value to atheism...
 _shakti_
Joined: 7/5/2011
Msg: 432
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 8:21:32 PM
In eastern philosophy, the whole concept of reality being like a dream is encapsulated in the sanskrit term 'maya'. And it contains within it the seed to see beyond.. the red pill if you will..

Which is how I see it, that 'this' is all a dream, in the sense that reality pulsates just beneath the surface.. and craving a steak in the matrix won't get you there.. Jmo 'n all.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 433
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 8:34:25 PM
Which is how I see it, that 'this' is all a dream, in the sense that reality pulsates just beneath the surface.. and craving a steak in the matrix won't get you there.. Jmo 'n all.


hahaha what does that even mean? Reality pulsates just beneath the surface? Which surface. The surface of our perceived reality or the surface of our ability to perceive reality or the surface of our entire consciousness?

I know it is hard to explain but even the most basic things should be explained when things like this are said. It assumes that there is some secret and hidden knowledge that only the special few have access to and only those special few that are spiritual aligned will ever grasp.

It's actually kind of screwed up and judgmental and rather arrogant to claim understanding of something that one would be absolutely incapable of explaining. That isn't even faith.

I'm not going to argue for Christianity but I will say that it was a pretty good attempt to consolidate the magic into a single ideal that could be encapsulated and treated "special". Taking the Universal God out of the universe makes it so that you can't worship trees, rivers and rocks. Taking it away from the numerous gods of some bent or another consolidated it down to free will and your choice and the choice of God. Maintaining aspects of comforting rituals and traditions and combining this with the absorbing of the cultures and their traditions and rituals and then making the claim that access to the special knowledge of 'heaven' was literally accessible by all regardless of class or social standing. It was a pretty seriously valiant effort. And quite successful.

But what is anyone supposed to do with 'craving a steak in the matrix'?

Is that some version of abstinence from reality? Am I not supposed to like steak? Am I not supposed to have craving and if I do is that somehow blocking my special knowledge?

Not trying to be opposite here. Just trying to figure out what this has to do with the value of science and atheism other then proving it?
 _shakti_
Joined: 7/5/2011
Msg: 434
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 8:47:48 PM

Not trying to be opposite here. Just trying to figure out what this has to do with the value of science and atheism other then proving it?
It has absolutely nothing to do with the value of science to atheism.. I was merely sharing my views on a side topic that was brought up in the thread.
 DevilfromToronto
Joined: 9/23/2012
Msg: 435
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 9:18:28 PM
Nope, you didn't get my point at all mr aries, nor did anyone else...

the world is full of mystery, not just equations that you 100% rely on

p.s. the point I mentioned was to answer to the quote :

I think we should all now be questioning our own existence.

 robertaus
Joined: 1/26/2010
Msg: 436
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/14/2013 10:11:40 PM

And evolution proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that life did not begin on this planet by some supernatural means, as is claimed in the bible


The Theory of Evolution does not even address or prove how life originated.How did you come to that conclusion? It has never been proven how life originated.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 437
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 1:09:52 AM
science had nothing to do with my conversion from Christianity to atheism. It was the simple observation that no amount of prayer caused God to end the abuse I experienced on an almost daily basis at the hands of my mother. So I quit. And even as a small child listening to the pastor's sermons.. something just didn't add up.

But I'm no longer an atheist, I realized that there were more ways to conceive of the divine, and I sought to learn about them all. I was hoping to find the religion that would become 'mine'.. but what I found instead is that they each contain a nugget of truth. Truths I like to collect.


Like many, you still just cannot let go. Lost searching for nothing. Still demanding that there just must be something. Hooked, withdrawn from all of the drugs, but sure that there must be another one out there somewhere, instead of wanting to really quit.

Part of what you're talking about is what any of us do - you're just valuing those truths, and looking to learn them. Growing in your overall understanding of reality. Having a reverence and an appreciation for your being, your world, etc. Fine. That's what I, a devoutly non-religious person, do...

...But the part that messes it all up, ruins it, is you thinking of it in terms of some kind of spiritual (religious) quest, and still insisting that there's something "divine". If not already, you'll experience that sense of oneness, higher perception of reality, whatever, etc, which is where a grown non-religious person should be, except that you will insist on calling it something to do with the "divine", and forget that that's as far away from being what the religious trap was all about as you can get, as far away as can be from what was meant by the word "divine" in the first place...and to say that you've just evolved a better definition for, or understanding of, the word divine, only compounds the self-deception and the original problem, and becomes the newest cop-out for just not letting go of the bullsh!t altogether.

Again, remember, if there is anything divine, or godly...having preconcieved attitudes or beliefs about it is the whole problem.

You see, I think at least with a significant percentage of people, no matter who they are or what is in their mind that they decide to embrace...they need some kind of feeling that there's that extra ingredient, some special mysterious thing, to pervade it all or be underneath it...to endorse it and validate it. To endorse and validate who they are, and what knowledge and views they decide to embrace in their mind. Without that something extra to kind of "vindicate" and "justify" it, it just doesn't seem right. And this is the point where a person needs to make the choice to just take it all in their own hands, stand on their own feet, accept it all as a sole sovereign individual, suck it up, and not need the funny extra little feeling.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 438
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:02:37 AM

And evolution proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that life did not begin on this planet by some supernatural means, as is claimed in the bible.


The Theory of Evolution does not even address or prove how life originated. How did you come to that conclusion? It has never been proven how life originated.


I've emphasised the important bits in the post you were responding to because you seem to be rebutting points that aren't made, and disputing 'conclusions' that haven't been drawn.

Note that in the first quote there is no claim, in any general sense, that the theory of evolution 'addresses the origin of life', or provides any general 'proofs' in that regard.
Note also, in the first quote, the complete lack of 'conclusions' linking the theory of evolution to 'origins' or 'proof' of anything other than it being a general refutation of the Biblical version* of the 'origins.of life'. You know, all that 'completely true inerrant holy scripture' stuff handed down from the omniscient god thing? That, oddly, seems to have no correlation to anything factual.


But having said all ^^^ that, to no effect one suspects, it's an interesting circumstance that the theory of evolution via natural selection has been discovered, since Darwin's time, to have wide applicability in many scientific, and even non-scientific, disciplines.


For instance, scientists are zeroing in on the way natural selection could produce complex self-replicating molecules from simple, non replicating pre-cursors.



http://life2.beyondgenes.com/
In the early 1980s Tom Cech, then a young biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, uncovered evidence that RNA does more than simply relay messages from DNA to proteins. In an experiment that earned him a Nobel Prize, he found that a single-celled creature named Tetrahymena possessed some RNA molecules that could act like simple enzymes. These molecules, which came to be known as ribozymes, twisted into a complicated snarl that allowed them to hack themselves apart. In other words, RNA could carry information like DNA and carry out biochemistry the way proteins do.
The discovery of ribozymes not only changed our understanding of how life works today, but it also offered insights into the origin of life itself. Scientists believe that life on Earth emerged from carbon compounds and other simple chemicals. But it has long been a mystery how those raw materials were transformed into DNA. After all, DNA can’t survive without proteins.

Jack Szostak of Harvard Medical School saw in this theory a calling. "I thought, I can figure out something different to do, where we could contribute something," he says. In a world before DNA, RNA molecules would have had to be a lot more accomplished than the Tetrahymena ribozyme. Most important of all, RNA would have to function as an enzyme (known as a replicase) that could replicate other RNA molecules. So Szostak began to tinker with RNA molecules from Tetrahymena and other organisms to see if he could make one. In 1991 he and graduate students Jennifer Doudna and Rachel Green succeeded in making a crude prototype. They created a molecule that could grab shorter chunks of RNA and make copies of them. It was a remarkable achievement, but Szostak knew it was only a small step toward something that could accurately be called alive.

Enzymes in living cells can make duplicate RNA sequences one nucleotide at a time. Szostak’s ribozyme could only piece together chains of RNA, each of which was several nucleotides long. And his new molecule was grievously sloppy, making regular copying errors. In a single generation, it could turn a life-sustaining genetic code into sheer gibberish. To create a better molecule, Szostak decided to turn to the father of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, for inspiration: "We realized that if we were really going to have a chance to have an RNA replicase, we were going to have to evolve it."

For many years biologists have been able to witness evolutionary change in the laboratory by studying organisms such as fruit flies or bacteria. Using that research as a guide, Szostak and his students began building a system to allow RNA molecules to evolve as well. Evolution produces new adaptations through cycles of mutation and natural selection.
Szostak started an evolutionary cycle by randomly stringing together nucleotides to create trillions of RNA molecules. Then he and his students gave the molecules a very basic task to perform: latching onto another molecule. Typically, only a few of these first-generation RNAs could do the job—and needed a long time to fumble around until they could grab the molecule. Szostak’s team extracted the winners and made trillions of new copies, allowing some random mutations to creep in along the way. Then they set the new generation on the same task and picked out the ones that did the job fastest.

In each experiment, Szostak and his students repeated the process dozens of times. In the end they were left with RNAs that were exquisitely well adapted to the job at hand. Szostak named these evolved RNAs aptamers, which means "parts that fit." And fit they did. Aptamers turned out to be capable of performing an extraordinary range of tasks. Some aptamers can bind to a specific virus, and others can grab certain kinds of cells or attach themselves to vitamins.

Aptamers were just the beginning. Unlike aptamers, which are capable only of sticking to something else, ribozymes can change the structure of other molecules. So Szostak then adapted the same process to evolving specialized ribozymes. Some can cut DNA apart, and others can put it back together. But of all the ribozymes that now exist, the ones that fascinate Szostak most are the ones that can do what his handmade RNAs couldn’t do: make new RNA.

The best thing out there, says Szostak, is a molecule that had its origins in his laboratory. In 1993 David Bartel, then a graduate student with Szostak, produced a ribozyme that could join another piece of RNA to itself. In subsequent work at the Whitehead Institute and MIT, Bartel modified this type of ribozyme through tinkering and evolution. By 2001 he and his coworkers had something much closer to a full-blown replicase. The ribozyme could grab an RNA molecule that would act as a template. It would then use the template as a guide for adding nucleotides one at a time onto an RNA fragment. In total, the ribozyme could add on 14 nucleotides, with an accuracy of roughly 97 percent.




http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/14/2794.full
How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.

Evolutionary change has been observed in the fossil record, in the field, in the laboratory, and at the molecular level in DNA and protein sequences, but a general method for quantifying the changes has not been agreed upon. In this paper the well-established mathematics of information theory (1–3) is used to measure the information content of nucleotide binding sites (4–11) and to follow changes in this measure to gauge the degree of evolution of the binding sites.
Figure 1. Genetic sequence of a computer organism.
Figure 2. Information gain by natural selection.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme
A ribozyme (ribonucleic acid enzyme) is an RNA molecule that is capable of performing specific biochemical reactions, similar to the action of protein enzymes. The 1981 discovery of ribozymes demonstrated that RNA can be both genetic material (like DNA) and a biological catalyst (like protein enzymes), and contributed to the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that RNA may have been important in the evolution of prebiotic self-replicating systems. Also termed catalytic RNA, ribozymes function within the ribosome (as part of the large subunit ribosomal RNA) to link amino acids during protein synthesis, and in a variety of RNA processing reactions, including RNA splicing, viral replication, and transfer RNA biosynthesis. Examples of ribozymes include the hammerhead ribozyme, the VS ribozyme and the hairpin ribozyme.

Investigators studying the origin of life have produced ribozymes in the laboratory that are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis under very specific conditions, such as an RNA polymerase ribozyme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins. RNA stores genetic information like DNA, and catalyzes chemical reactions like an enzyme protein. It may, therefore, have played a major step in the evolution of cellular life.

The RNA world would have eventually been replaced by the DNA, RNA and protein world of today, likely through an intermediate stage of ribonucleoprotein enzymes such as the ribosome and ribozymes, since proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities would only have come about after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization. DNA is thought to have taken over the role of data storage due to its increased stability, while proteins, through a greater variety of monomers (amino acids), replaced RNA's role in specialized biocatalysis.

The RNA world hypothesis is supported by the observation that many of the most critical components of cells (those that evolve the slowest) are composed mostly or entirely of RNA. This would mean that the RNA in modern cells is an evolutionary remnant of the RNA world that preceded ours. Also, many critical cofactors (ATP, Acetyl-CoA, NADH, etc.) are either nucleotides or substances clearly related to them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_II_intron
Group II introns are a large class of self-catalytic ribozymes as well as mobile genetic element found within the genes of all three domains of life.



http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_freeman_evol_4/77/19890/5092012.cw/index.html



http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
Jack W. Szostak
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical School
Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University
Alex. A. Rich Distinguished Investigator, Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital
We are interested in the chemical and physical processes that facilitated the transition from chemical evolution to biological evolution on the early earth. As a way of exploring these processes, our laboratory is trying to build a synthetic cellular system that undergoes Darwinian evolution. Our view of what such a chemical system would look like centers on a model of a primitive cell, or protocell, that consists of two main components: a self-replicating genetic polymer and a self-replicating membrane boundary. The job of the genetic polymer is to carry information in a way that allows for both replication and variation, so that new sequences that encode useful functions can be inherited and can further evolve. The role of the protocell membrane is to keep these informational polymers localized, so that the functions they encode lead to an advantage in terms of their own replication or survival. Such a system should, given time and the right environment, begin to evolve in a Darwinian fashion, potentially leading to the spontaneous emergence of genomically encoded catalysts and structural molecules.

We hope that our explorations of the chemistry and physics behind the emergence of Darwinian evolution will lead to explanations for some of the universal properties of modern cells, as well as explanations of how modern cells arose from their simpler ancestors.


Here's ^^^ the value of science to atheism. God things are redundant. They aren't needed to 'explain' anything. There is no evidence that any exist. It follows that since there's no rational reason to believe 'in' them, those that do believe in them hold irrational beliefs.
 _shakti_
Joined: 7/5/2011
Msg: 439
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 8:59:01 AM

Like many, you still just cannot let go. Lost searching for nothing. Still demanding that there just must be something. Hooked, withdrawn from all of the drugs, but sure that there must be another one out there somewhere, instead of wanting to really quit.
Lol... please, don't talk to me like a lost child stumbling in the forest when I have put more time than many into researching such things to satisfy my own sense of what is true.

If you have done the same and come to a different conclusion? Cool. So what? I don't make judgements about you, so why do you make them about me?

...But the part that messes it all up, ruins it
Ruins it..... to whom.. ?

Obviously it doesn't 'ruin it' to me, or I wouldn't have the belief system that I do. And with all due respect, I could care less what you or anyone else thinks about it. Sorry that I don't fit within what you consider appropriate. I get it from both sides and am used to it. But I still refuse to step inside anyone's prepackaged box.

Without that something extra to kind of "vindicate" and "justify" it, it just doesn't seem right.
Like your atheism ? I have no label, no comfort in numbers over here.. and am completely fine with it. I just enjoy discussing such things, it often expands my views.. which are ever evolving.

this is the point where a person needs to make the choice to just take it all in their own hands, stand on their own feet, accept it all as a sole sovereign individual, suck it up, and not need the funny extra little feeling.
Do you take me for some no-mind who is going to thank you and ask for the directions on your path?

It's not how I'm built. I have my own path to walk and there's no one else on it to let me know it's the 'right' one either. So your comments are a bit ludicrous to me. As for the 'funny extra little feeling'? I don't need to need it.. they are aplenty and I'll perceive them how I will, with or without your approval :)
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 440
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 1:58:01 PM

p.s. the point I mentioned was to answer to the quote :

Answering something implies things. The implication of questioning our own existence with the response of "we don't exist" has a whole lot of implied assumptions. From these assumptions things can be derived.

So, I don't understand what about your statement I didn't get? Can you explain?

Kind of the basic point of the thread right? Questioning others statements / judgments / assertions / opinions of existence should fall into this category.
 ShineOnBrightly
Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 441
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 3:23:01 PM

The Theory of Evolution does not even address or prove how life originated.How did you come to that conclusion? It has never been proven how life originated.

I didn't say that it did. I just said that human life could not possibly have come from some Magic Man in the Sky putting it there. Evolution states, and has proven, that man and ape evolved from the same common ancestor. That alone disproves the biblical myth.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 442
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 3:53:00 PM
shatki, stop biting. ouch. that hurts.
 DevilfromToronto
Joined: 9/23/2012
Msg: 443
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 6:22:06 PM
mr aries, I don't read or write long posts, but I will respond to your last post after I organize and simplify what I believe.




I just said that human life could not possibly have come from some Magic Man in the Sky putting it there. Evolution states, and has proven, that man and ape evolved from the same common ancestor.


God(s) (if any) did not create lives by magic or kill lives by coming in front of them and stabbing them to death, or make some people very rich by coming to their houses and dropping millions of $$$.....

human's actions are basically directed by their minds/thoughts, when a female & a male suddenly (a specific timing) meet and mentally feel good with each other, a possible relationship and even babies will eventually come. When someone's life has to be taken in an accident, for example by a drunk driver, the fatal accident will happen when the driver deeply feels the need of alcohol... drink and drive.... and hit the victim (all at the same timing). Not long ago, a young mother here who had never bought lottery suddenly decided (at this specific timing) to use the change from buying candies (for her son) to buy a lottery ticket, she won the grand prize solely.

as a believer of fate (and also destiny, fate and destiny are two different things), everything happens at their specific (assigned) timings, with the minds of the involved people being altered at the same time to match with

p.s. there is Evolution as well as ''Somthing'' that is behind scientists' eyes
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 444
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:00:15 PM
@devilfromupnorth

What you are describing. do you call it fate and destiny? Is there an engine driving it? how do you describe it's cause?

And thank you for explaining.
 DevilfromToronto
Joined: 9/23/2012
Msg: 445
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:06:10 PM
^^^^^^^

I haven't responded to your previous post yet regarding my post of "none of us exists", I will, but later....
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 446
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:42:18 PM

It follows that since there's no rational reason to believe 'in' them, those that do believe in them hold irrational beliefs.


Be very careful with that statement/thought. The definition of "irrational" is multi-pronged. We commonly use the word "irrational " to refer to insanity, but ALSO to refer to VERY sane mathematical concepts and formulas.

In that sentence that I quoted, you have, I believe, tried to get away with mixing metaphors within a single phrase. And thus, however true it might be that belief in magical things is, by definition "non-rational," to imply or claim that therefore it is identical with insanity, is both insulting, and an inaccurate (and therefore false) use of the terminology.
 3rdmediumfish
Joined: 1/22/2015
Msg: 447
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 1/31/2015 10:14:03 PM
God is science.

The Big Bang was actually a major implosion of the dark matter surrounding the alleged pinpoint matter where the Big Bang was located.
Location being imaginative, as you can't have a location, if there isn't a universe that exists to plot your location.
You would need to exist in a universe with 3 dimensions, along with time and space being part of that existence.

Anyhow, the magnitude of the dark matter implosion was so immense that the it ripped apart the pinpoint matter from all sides simultaneously in all directions.

Again, this defies logic,
as what possible direction could that matter that was ripped apart fly into if nothing ever existed?

I know what you're thinking,
"How can something that totally surrounds you in all directions possibly implode away from you in all directions?"
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 448
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 2/1/2015 12:11:42 AM

I know what you're thinking,
"How can something that totally surrounds you in all directions possibly implode away from you in all directions?"


No... I wasn't thinking that.


I was thinking your post is incoherent gibberish.

But at least you're consistent. All of the posts in your posting history are gibberish too.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 449
view profile
History
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 2/2/2015 8:41:19 AM
...heard something on public radio from it's "science Friday" show that I listen to...can't remember accurately and I wish I could...but apparently there's strong evidence/suggestion, from speculations on black holes etc, that a whole universe can exist within a black hole and what we think was our big bang singularity was the previous universe and at some point after peak expansion the universe "re-big-bangs" even bigger each time (not contracting or big-crunching, but blowing even bigger from there), wherein of course the laws of nature take on different behaviors. Something like that. I expect someone can clarify what it is I'm talking about.
 mike11091
Joined: 8/25/2013
Msg: 450
The value of science to atheism
Posted: 2/3/2015 9:05:36 PM

It is more likely that all matter was absorbed by a super massive black hole whereby the singularity became critical and began to expand as per big bang theory.


There's a popular theory going around that the universe is actually contracting, and that the method in which "expansion" was determined was flawed. It's just a theory though, and, from what I've read, un-provable because the theory refers to the "red-shift" of objects in space being an indication of increased mass over time.

I know I'm kind of just popping into this, but I have a thing for space...sorry...but it does support what you said about all matter being absorbed and subsequently expanded.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The value of science to atheism