If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Scientists: We finally found proof of the Big Bang and its aftermath. CNN: Scientists prove existence of god   (religion.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 350
    More: Dumbass, god created  
•       •       •

9961 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:12 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-21 12:41:09 PM  
lolwut?
 
2014-03-21 12:43:07 PM  
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs
 
2014-03-21 12:46:05 PM  
Scientists find proof the black hole that swallowed the missing malaysia air jet was God's vengence on filthy shellfish eaters.
 
2014-03-21 12:51:01 PM  
Every sentence I read makes me facepalm harder than the previous one. I'm going to need medical attention if I keep reading.
 
2014-03-21 12:52:46 PM  
Whatever helps you sleep at night, lady. As long as she doesn't go making policy over it, she can feel whatever comfort from the discovery as she wants.
 
2014-03-21 12:53:39 PM  
Belief is proof enough so why search for facts?
 
2014-03-21 12:56:07 PM  

exick: Every sentence I read makes me facepalm harder than the previous one. I'm going to need medical attention if I keep reading.


Do you want us to have you commited?  You seem to be engaging in self-harm.
 
2014-03-21 12:56:13 PM  
And yet submitter still hasn't found his reading comprehension.
 
2014-03-21 12:59:12 PM  
If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it.

Agent is not simple logic. Cause is simple logic. Agent is agency, a anthropomorphized trait. Fark off, fundie, you fail it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 01:04:57 PM  
To be fair, it's an opinion piece.
 
2014-03-21 01:13:15 PM  

vpb: To be fair, it's an opinion piece.


I wish I could get paid to write stupid opinions.

Actually I don't,I'd probably suck at that, but still!
 
2014-03-21 01:13:36 PM  
Science would and could never even attempt to prove the existence of god.

But I'm sure this article is worth reading anyways.
 
2014-03-21 01:14:27 PM  
Your blog sucks.
 
2014-03-21 01:14:36 PM  
Which god?

Oh...that one.
 
2014-03-21 01:14:47 PM  

vpb: To be fair, it's an opinion piece.


That's why opinions are like garage band demo tapes...nobody wants to hear yours.
 
2014-03-21 01:15:20 PM  
Duh. If you believe in god, it only logically follows that everything in existence was created by him
 
2014-03-21 01:15:52 PM  
Ah yes, a little of "first cause" argument sprinkled with god of the gaps. Great work there, Leslie Wickman of Azusa Pacific University.
 
2014-03-21 01:15:59 PM  
Well, of course. Here's the aftermath.

i2.minus.com

whatshotwhatstrendingnow.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-21 01:16:17 PM  
The guy who came up with the theory didn't seem bothered by the idea of the existence of God.
 
2014-03-21 01:16:45 PM  
www.phdcomics.com
 
2014-03-21 01:16:58 PM  
Yay for the constant stream of nut jobs with high school educations clearing up the whole "existence of god" issue.  I bet she also has some valuable insights on the benefits of a flat tax.
 
2014-03-21 01:17:10 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: That's why opinions are like garage band demo tapes...nobody wants to hear yours.


fantasy football teams
fantasy football team names
Dream i had last night
crazy drug story from college
march madness bracket
backup march madness bracket
backup march madness bracket in separate march madness league
 
2014-03-21 01:17:57 PM  
I'm sure a civilization (type 5) that can create a universe doesn't need any worship. We're like ants to them.
 
2014-03-21 01:19:20 PM  
Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?
 
2014-03-21 01:20:09 PM  
He was smaller than you'd think.
 
2014-03-21 01:20:15 PM  
I suppose I'm fine with people using this as an excuse for some hyper-intelligent being (called God), being responsible for the beginning of it all.  Whatever makes you feel better.  But it does not in any manner whatsoever prove any excuse for religion.
 
2014-03-21 01:20:26 PM  
FTA: Opinion by  Leslie A. Wickmanspecial to CNN

Yes.  very, very "special"
 
2014-03-21 01:20:32 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Well, of course. Here's the aftermath.

[i2.minus.com image 850x1133]

[whatshotwhatstrendingnow.files.wordpress.com image 786x1190]


Yowsah!  Who's that?!
 
2014-03-21 01:21:16 PM  
Subby, please don't make me have to defend things I don't want to defend...

img.fark.net

Just, you know, try to be reasonable.
 
2014-03-21 01:21:25 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?


Douglas Adams did.  It made God disappear in a puff of logic.
 
2014-03-21 01:21:37 PM  
It's not CNN saying this, it's an opinion piece. There is a difference.

FTA:

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it.
That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."
So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.


I'm fine with this. I have no problem with people having religious beliefs, it's when they try and impose those upon me that I have an issue. I was saying in another thread yesterday that I see this as a way for people to reconcile their belief in God and their belief in science. There is no problem with saying that some creator started the Big Bang, it's when you try and state that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or some group should be targeted because the "bible" says so that I have an issue.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: vpb: To be fair, it's an opinion piece.

That's why opinions are like garage band demo tapes...nobody wants to hear yours.


Ironic that you come to fark to state your opinion about opinions...
 
2014-03-21 01:21:39 PM  
Does the Big Bang offer proof of God?

No.
 
2014-03-21 01:21:45 PM  
Few years ago I went to college, there was a crazy chick spewing how Science cannot explain the big bang theory, let alone half of the universe, so in that case God must exist. I watched two drunk physic major's just drill the hell out of her for a good 20 minutes in which she couldn't even answer a single question on the law of physics.

What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.
 
2014-03-21 01:22:09 PM  

Spartapuss: He was smaller than you'd think.


And incredibly dense.
 
2014-03-21 01:22:46 PM  
Photographic evidence.

/checkmate, atheists.
 
2014-03-21 01:22:53 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Well, of course. Here's the aftermath.

[i2.minus.com image 850x1133]

[whatshotwhatstrendingnow.files.wordpress.com image 786x1190]


That second one is interesting... I can't figure out if the 3rd zipper is for sex, or so she can take a leak...
 
2014-03-21 01:23:08 PM  
CNN has been psuedo-satire for like 5 years now. You get better journalism out of The Daily Mail
 
2014-03-21 01:23:30 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?


For some reason I get the sense that they used to, but no.

Ironically, babies being born, seeds growing into flowers, the cacophony of the forest, the tapestry of stars and other astronomic bodies as seen from Earth (or close to it) at night, and humanity's capacity for [art|compassion|rationalization|intelligence|speech|faith] are also "proof" of god, so why bother looking for physical evidence (or crowing that you found it) in the first place?
 
2014-03-21 01:24:17 PM  
lennavan: Science would and could never even attempt to prove the existence of god.

But I'm sure this article is worth reading anyways.


It's helpful to study the thought processes of such individuals to find a cure.
 
2014-03-21 01:24:21 PM  
If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it

The prime mover argument, despite being thoroughly refuted philosophically really has legs.

OtherLittleGuy: Well, of course. Here's the aftermath.

[i2.minus.com image 850x1133]

[whatshotwhatstrendingnow.files.wordpress.com image 786x1190]


But those are nicer legs.
 
2014-03-21 01:24:41 PM  
Oh look, it's a religious person reconciling new scientific knowledge with their religion, not rejecting the science or asserting that Genesis literally happened.

BURN HIM AT THE F**KING STAKE.

HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?


Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Yay for the constant stream of nut jobs with high school educations clearing up the whole "existence of god" issue.  I bet she also has some valuable insights on the benefits of a flat tax.


RoxtarRyan: Your blog sucks.


lockers: Belief is proof enough so why search for facts?


exick: Every sentence I read makes me facepalm harder than the previous one. I'm going to need medical attention if I keep reading.

 
2014-03-21 01:24:49 PM  

Mikey1969: OtherLittleGuy: Well, of course. Here's the aftermath.

[i2.minus.com image 850x1133]

[whatshotwhatstrendingnow.files.wordpress.com image 786x1190]

That second one is interesting... I can't figure out if the 3rd zipper is for sex, or so she can take a leak...


Sometimes one, sometimes the other... and sometimes both at the same time...
 
2014-03-21 01:25:18 PM  

Misconduc: Few years ago I went to college, there was a crazy chick spewing how Science cannot explain the big bang theory, let alone half of the universe, so in that case God must exist. I watched two drunk physic major's just drill the hell out of her for a good 20 minutes in which she couldn't even answer a single question on the law of physics.

What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.


So....did you close the deal with her?
 
2014-03-21 01:25:45 PM  

lockers: Belief is proof enough so why search for facts?


 I don't think the author would agree with that at all:
Leslie Wickman is director of the Center for Research in Science at Azusa Pacific University. Wickman has also been an engineer for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, where she worked on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station programs.


She's basically telling fundi Christians that they shouldn't feel threatened by scientific discovery.
 
2014-03-21 01:25:55 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it.

Agent is not simple logic. Cause is simple logic. Agent is agency, a anthropomorphized trait. Fark off, fundie, you fail it.


Also, simple logic tends not to apply to situations far removed from our everyday experience.  Most modern physics flies in the face of our "simple logic".


However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe.

That's been true of quite a bit of evidence for more than a half century.  This new evidence is direct support for inflation in the early cosmos, which has been the leading contender to deal with other issues in Big Bang cosmology but has had no direct evidence.


lennavan: Science would and could never even attempt to prove the existence of god.


I'm not convinced about that.  Given evidence of a deity that goes beyond, "well, it's extremely complicated and I can't imagine how it happened without an intelligence behind it", I'm sure science would do their best to determine if such a deity exists.  Problem is, no such evidence exists.
 
2014-03-21 01:26:32 PM  

Dr Dreidel: HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?

For some reason I get the sense that they used to, but no.

Ironically, babies being born, seeds growing into flowers, the cacophony of the forest, the tapestry of stars and other astronomic bodies as seen from Earth (or close to it) at night, and humanity's capacity for [art|compassion|rationalization|intelligence|speech|faith] are also "proof" of god, so why bother looking for physical evidence (or crowing that you found it) in the first place?


I think it's silly but hey, a personal opinion by itself harms no one. It's when they try to strip science from science textbooks and replace it with myth that I get stabby.
 
2014-03-21 01:26:40 PM  
www.myfacewhen.net

because everyday ordinary facepalm just didn't express my feeling about that bit of drivel.
 
2014-03-21 01:26:49 PM  

ecx.images-amazon.com


Nabb1:
The guy who came up with the theory didn't seem bothered by the idea of the existence of God.



i just read Chris Hadfield's pretty entertaining book;  he flew several shuttle missions and spent about 6 months on the ISS.  anywyas, to your comment, he says something in the book, about how you see untold majesty in the cosmos and the awe of Earth (i think 18 sunrises in 24 hours due to the ISS' orbit), something like, "those who leave Earth either believing in a deity or rejecting religion in its entirety usually come back to Earth feeling even more strongly in that belief system, whatever it may be."

/he was on Nerdist podcast a few months back, very interesting listen.  book was ok but the podcast, more of his personality came through.  check it out brotherman.
 
2014-03-21 01:27:16 PM  
Finding evidence that some initial big bang like event happened, creating what we know as the universe does not facilitate your religious argument.  In fact it specifically precludes many who argue are that god spontaneously created the earth and universe exactly as they are and unchanging.  Try again.  Or don't.

/CNN sucks
//Her blog sucks
 
2014-03-21 01:27:21 PM  

Fubini: Oh look, it's a religious person reconciling new scientific knowledge with their religion, not rejecting the science or asserting that Genesis literally happened.

BURN HIM AT THE F**KING STAKE.

HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Yay for the constant stream of nut jobs with high school educations clearing up the whole "existence of god" issue.  I bet she also has some valuable insights on the benefits of a flat tax.

RoxtarRyan: Your blog sucks.

lockers: Belief is proof enough so why search for facts?

exick: Every sentence I read makes me facepalm harder than the previous one. I'm going to need medical attention if I keep reading.


So you don't see the folly in looking for proof of god? Also, come off of your cross. Also, it was generally christians burning people at the stake for imagined slights against their god.
 
2014-03-21 01:27:39 PM  
Atheist here
Fark religion threads are always fascinating. An overwhelming majority of posters here deride idiots for believing in the magical sky fairy, yet somehow over 70% of all Americans adults admit they believe in god.
I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?
 
2014-03-21 01:28:06 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Yay for the constant stream of nut jobs with high school educations clearing up the whole "existence of god" issue.  I bet she also has some valuable insights on the benefits of a flat tax.


FTFA:
Wickman has also been an engineer for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, where she worked on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station programs.

What do you do for a living again?
 
2014-03-21 01:28:32 PM  

scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs


It goes:

Any news source on earth other than CNN >  Blogs > CNN >CNN Blogs
 
2014-03-21 01:28:37 PM  

durbnpoisn: I suppose I'm fine with people using this as an excuse for some hyper-intelligent being (called God), being responsible for the beginning of it all.  Whatever makes you feel better.  But it does not in any manner whatsoever prove any excuse for religion.


Well now I can sleep easy knowing that you think it is fine. That could have kept me up at night.
 
2014-03-21 01:28:46 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-21 01:29:03 PM  

Misconduc: Few years ago I went to college, there was a crazy chick spewing how Science cannot explain the big bang theory, let alone half of the universe, so in that case God must exist. I watched two drunk physic major's just drill the hell out of her for a good 20 minutes in which she couldn't even answer a single question on the law of physics.


Giggity
 
2014-03-21 01:29:31 PM  
Also: we've been over this over and over and over again. TFA lady needs to read up.

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. ... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."

"Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion."

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.


-Robert Jastrow,  The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p. 19.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 01:29:49 PM  
"The views expressed in this column belong to Wickman. "
 
2014-03-21 01:29:56 PM  

scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4
religion.blogs.cnn.com
religion.blogs
religion
blogs


You can't make it easier than that.
 
2014-03-21 01:30:00 PM  

tblax: Misconduc: Few years ago I went to college, there was a crazy chick spewing how Science cannot explain the big bang theory, let alone half of the universe, so in that case God must exist. I watched two drunk physic major's just drill the hell out of her for a good 20 minutes in which she couldn't even answer a single question on the law of physics.

Giggity


I don't know about you but I just experienced a Big Bang. In my pants.

/it was my penis
 
2014-03-21 01:30:40 PM  
Hey CNN:

Finding out that there was a beginning =/= existence of a creator.
 
2014-03-21 01:31:51 PM  
wasn't the big bang theory originally proposed by a catholic priest anyway? religion masquerading as science or something along those lines?
 
2014-03-21 01:32:13 PM  
our belief is superior to your speculation.

no, our speculation is superior to your belief!
 
2014-03-21 01:32:46 PM  

doubled99: Atheist here
Fark religion threads are always fascinating. An overwhelming majority of posters here deride idiots for believing in the magical sky fairy, yet somehow over 70% of all Americans adults admit they believe in god.
I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


Or, Farkers are a non representative sample of the population.
Judging by the number of Facebook fundies I've ignored over the years, I'd say that must be the case.
 
2014-03-21 01:32:54 PM  

stonicus: Mikey1969: OtherLittleGuy: Well, of course. Here's the aftermath.

[i2.minus.com image 850x1133]

[whatshotwhatstrendingnow.files.wordpress.com image 786x1190]

That second one is interesting... I can't figure out if the 3rd zipper is for sex, or so she can take a leak...

Sometimes one, sometimes the other... and sometimes both at the same time...


Hmmm, love to get her number. I wonder if she does bachelor parties? I mean, I'm married, but I never had one, so I think my wife still owes me.
 
2014-03-21 01:33:46 PM  

rickythepenguin: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


Nabb1: The guy who came up with the theory didn't seem bothered by the idea of the existence of God.


i just read Chris Hadfield's pretty entertaining book;  he flew several shuttle missions and spent about 6 months on the ISS.  anywyas, to your comment, he says something in the book, about how you see untold majesty in the cosmos and the awe of Earth (i think 18 sunrises in 24 hours due to the ISS' orbit), something like, "those who leave Earth either believing in a deity or rejecting religion in its entirety usually come back to Earth feeling even more strongly in that belief system, whatever it may be."

/he was on Nerdist podcast a few months back, very interesting listen.  book was ok but the podcast, more of his personality came through.  check it out brotherman.


Now, why doesn't god smite down astronauts the way he did all the people who tried to build the Tower of Babel?
 
2014-03-21 01:34:07 PM  
Is it bad to wish Ted Turner was running that place again?
 
2014-03-21 01:35:32 PM  

verbaltoxin: Dr Dreidel: HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?

For some reason I get the sense that they used to, but no.

I think it's silly but hey, a personal opinion by itself harms no one. It's when they try to strip science from science textbooks and replace it with myth that I get stabby.


I feel like that should be implied in every Fark-religion contribution (not to be confused with a "fark religion" contribution), and Farkers who state "Screw the religioners even if they teach The Big Bang and evolution in science class!" should be the ones who have to answer.

Just because, here's why I'm agnostic:
If god exists, what is my purpose? Ease the suffering of my fellow man as much and as often as possible.
If god does not exist, what is my purpose? Ease the suffering of my fellow man as much and as often as possible.

// subset of agnosticism called "apatheism"
 
2014-03-21 01:35:35 PM  
The Big Bang proves God exists, therefore no gays.
 
2014-03-21 01:36:09 PM  
They really should put a big potato icon at the top of their opinion pages and blogs.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-21 01:36:37 PM  

doubled99: I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


Back about 60 years ago you would have found well over 90% of adults saying they believed in god. Only about 10 years ago the number was over 80%. Now it's around 70%. It appears as if the more we find out about the world around us, the more people are willing to admit the sun is just a star and not Apollo in his chariot.
 
2014-03-21 01:36:44 PM  

stonicus: Now, why doesn't god smite down astronauts the way he did all the people who tried to build the Tower of Babel?


Again people are assuming the wrong god.

/Name the last time you saw frost giants walking around.
//Exactly.
 
2014-03-21 01:37:39 PM  
I tend to believe, without any scientific evidence or proof at all, that our universe is one of many within an even greater 'macroverse' much like how galaxies form and slowly dissipate inside our own universe... and that the distance of our reach out into the universe is still so infinitesimally small that it could be eons before we're able to prove (or disprove) it.

I don't, however, believe that huge aliens are playing marbles with us. Yet.
 
2014-03-21 01:38:08 PM  

Ambivalence: exick: Every sentence I read makes me facepalm harder than the previous one. I'm going to need medical attention if I keep reading.

Do you want us to have you commited?  You seem to be engaging in self-harm.


As the bear said "I dont think you're here for the hunting..."
 
2014-03-21 01:38:18 PM  

wantingout: wasn't the big bang theory originally proposed by a catholic priest anyway? religion masquerading as science or something along those lines?


By Georges Lemaître, to be precise.  The term "Big Bang" itself is a pejorative term coined by proponents of the steady state universe which was the prevailing view at the time.
 
2014-03-21 01:39:07 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: So you don't see the folly in looking for proof of god? Also, come off of your cross. Also, it was generally christians burning people at the stake for imagined slights against their god.


Is this person looking for "proof of God"? No, she's not- she's fitting new scientific fact into her religious worldivew. She's actually arguing the exact negation of your statement: She's demonstrating how this new scientific evidence does not imply the absence of God.

If P is "inflationary universe" and Q is "God exists", you're saying that she's arguing that P implies Q. She's actually arguing ~(P implies ~Q). Or, more simply, P and Q- she believes both that God exists and that there's an inflationary universe.

There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science. The reality is that they just hate religion, or that they hate Christians, and they're just going to be dickwads about it whenever the topic comes up.
 
2014-03-21 01:39:07 PM  
Christians are farking stupid.
 
2014-03-21 01:39:43 PM  

Mikey1969: Ironic that you come to fark to state your opinion about opinions...


What if I stated my opinion about recursions?
 
2014-03-21 01:39:44 PM  

vpb: To be fair, it's an opinion piece.


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-03-21 01:39:48 PM  

waterrockets: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Yay for the constant stream of nut jobs with high school educations clearing up the whole "existence of god" issue.  I bet she also has some valuable insights on the benefits of a flat tax.

FTFA:
Wickman has also been an engineer for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, where she worked on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station programs.

What do you do for a living again?


Aside from her no doubt stellar work in astro engineering (pun sadly intended), she was instrumental in the development and programming of the Fountains of Bellagio in Las Vegas. I'd be surprised if anyone in this thread has contributed anything even half as valuable to humanity.
 
2014-03-21 01:41:48 PM  

Fubini: Oh look, it's a religious person reconciling new scientific knowledge with their religion, not rejecting the science or asserting that Genesis literally happened.


The problem with people doing it in this fashion is that hey already stakes his claim to already have an answer for everything (his god), so when approached with new science, he then twists the evidence to support his "ultimate" answer. This isn't science. This is moving goalposts so no matter the evidence, your already existing bias is always correct.

ts3.mm.bing.net
 
2014-03-21 01:42:43 PM  
Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God oscillation?

FTFY.

//Maybe. Maybe not.
 
2014-03-21 01:43:14 PM  
I found proof that there is a God a long time ago right here on Earth, and he walks amongst us:

www.metalsucks.net
 
2014-03-21 01:43:44 PM  

rickythepenguin: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


Nabb1: The guy who came up with the theory didn't seem bothered by the idea of the existence of God.


i just read Chris Hadfield's pretty entertaining book;  he flew several shuttle missions and spent about 6 months on the ISS.  anywyas, to your comment, he says something in the book, about how you see untold majesty in the cosmos and the awe of Earth (i think 18 sunrises in 24 hours due to the ISS' orbit), something like, "those who leave Earth either believing in a deity or rejecting religion in its entirety usually come back to Earth feeling even more strongly in that belief system, whatever it may be."

/he was on Nerdist podcast a few months back, very interesting listen.  book was ok but the podcast, more of his personality came through.  check it out brotherman.


Second this.  I'm reading the book now, it's a pretty fun and easy read.  I'll have to check out that podcast too.
 
2014-03-21 01:44:05 PM  

wantingout: wasn't the big bang theory originally proposed by a catholic priest anyway? religion masquerading as science or something along those lines?


It was proposed by a Catholic priest, (Georges Lemaitre, as linked above) but he wasn't trying to masquerade religion as science. He was applying Einstein's theory to cosmology, and made the same realizations that Edwin Hubble would make two years later, and even formulated what we now call "Hubble's Law".

The Catholic church has a long history of funding science. You know all those priests and monks take a vow of celibacy, right? What else are they going to do?
 
2014-03-21 01:44:56 PM  

Fubini: Oh look, it's a religious person reconciling new scientific knowledge with their religion, not rejecting the science or asserting that Genesis literally happened.

Yes because the belief that all the technical bits of the creation of the universe were left out of Genesis since the illiterate, Middle Eastern, goat herders would have been confused is a perfectly rational one and not worthy of ridicule.
 
2014-03-21 01:45:18 PM  
Well, as scientists we follow the evidence wherever it leads. Maybe that ends up with us finally being worthy of speaking to a supreme being.  Or maybe if just makes us more understanding of how the universe operates.  Both good.
 
2014-03-21 01:46:57 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Hey CNN:

Finding out that there was a beginning =/= existence of a creator.


Reading the linked opinion piece in their religion blog section by a peaceful and reasonable Christian and scientist is a good idea before commentling. And after.
 
2014-03-21 01:47:25 PM  

Fubini: There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science. The reality is that they just hate religion, or that they hate Christians, and they're just going to be dickwads about it whenever the topic comes up.


Yeah, that bothers me, too. I have no problem with this, they still accept what science says, the biggest difference is that they want to find an outside cause for the BB, not a real big distinction if they are still accepting science.

Besides, all of the chuckleheads on here have to admit it's better than the people who flat out denied that it proved anything on the Fox News feed about this story in a thread that ran yesterday.
 
2014-03-21 01:48:26 PM  

RoxtarRyan: The problem with people doing it in this fashion is that hey already stakes his claim to already have an answer for everything (his god), so when approached with new science, he then twists the evidence to support his "ultimate" answer. This isn't science. This is moving goalposts so no matter the evidence, your already existing bias is always correct.


You're simply wrong. Where in TFA is the author twisting the science? She's not. She's not arguing that this proves God exists, and she's not denying any scientific fact, she's showing how new scientific fact is compatible with her religious views.
 
2014-03-21 01:50:37 PM  

exick: Yes because the belief that all the technical bits of the creation of the universe were left out of Genesis since the illiterate, Middle Eastern, goat herders would have been confused is a perfectly rational one and not worthy of ridicule.


You're assuming that the Bible has to be literally correct.

The Bible was never meant to be a technical how-to manual for creating the universe. You're the one arguing that it is.
 
2014-03-21 01:50:58 PM  
The big bang may have occurred numerous time over the course of cosmic history. So this means that God is either insane or caught in an infinite loop and needs a good programmer.
 
2014-03-21 01:52:51 PM  
So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.

Well, it actually doesn't, but if you need that to get through the day, go right ahead. I won't stop you.
 
2014-03-21 01:53:29 PM  
www.reactiongifs.us
 
2014-03-21 01:54:14 PM  
Wait a minute ...

I thought we proved the existence of god a while back by how well a banana fits in the human hand.
 
2014-03-21 01:54:15 PM  

GleeUnit: Second this. I'm reading the book now, it's a pretty fun and easy read. I'll have to check out that podcast too.



not a spoiler per se but the book kinda ends with a cool story involving a fellow astronaut was was also a Navy SEAL.  I bet that guy never stops getting blown.

A Navy SEAL annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd and Astronaut.  Meaning, in all conceivable likelihood, a Ph.D. in something extremely technical, not some bullshiat Ph.D. in french literature.  How badass is that?

/and namedrop of meeting Mark Kelly a few months ago, husband of Gabby Giffords.  She was a few feet away from me but I didn't want to bother her.
 
2014-03-21 01:54:22 PM  

Fubini: exick: Yes because the belief that all the technical bits of the creation of the universe were left out of Genesis since the illiterate, Middle Eastern, goat herders would have been confused is a perfectly rational one and not worthy of ridicule.

You're assuming that the Bible has to be literally correct.

The Bible was never meant to be a technical how-to manual for creating the universe. You're the one arguing that it is.


Exactly. Those procedures are described in the Necronomicon.
 
2014-03-21 01:54:49 PM  

ranold: Christians are farking stupid.


You're a bigot.
 
2014-03-21 01:55:44 PM  

JackieRabbit: or caught in an infinite loop and needs a good programmer.


I would have went with 'massive tachyon burst to the focal point of the rift' or something.

/potato
//potahto
 
2014-03-21 01:56:08 PM  
Yeah, I have a theory, and it certainly involves some big bangin'...

www.novidadediaria.com.br

www.cineol.net

www.adrants.com

wallpaperweb.org
 
2014-03-21 01:57:40 PM  
Fubini:
The Bible was never meant to be a technical how-to manual for creating the universe.

Now that I would read.
 
2014-03-21 01:57:50 PM  

Blink: Wait a minute ...

I thought we proved the existence of god a while back by how well a banana fits in the human hand

Kirk Cameron's ass.

FTFY
 
2014-03-21 01:58:16 PM  

Fubini: She's not arguing that this proves God exists


Someone didn't read TFA.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.
 
2014-03-21 01:58:20 PM  
is there something wrong with philosophizing about a possible intersection of religion and science in a religion blog?

the horror!
 
2014-03-21 01:59:38 PM  

kling_klang_bed: I found proof that there is a God a long time ago right here on Earth, and he walks amongst us:

[www.metalsucks.net image 850x1131]


This point is not made enough in these threads.
 
2014-03-21 01:59:39 PM  
If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?
 
2014-03-21 02:00:53 PM  
i44.tinypic.com

QED
 
2014-03-21 02:00:59 PM  
I keep saying CNN can't possibly get any more stupid, and CNN keeps saying - challenge accepted.
 
2014-03-21 02:02:08 PM  

negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?


The Titans.
 
2014-03-21 02:02:35 PM  

scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs


That, and the article title is not "Scientists prove existence of god" but "Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?"

And we all know the rule about headlines phrased as yes/no questions.
 
2014-03-21 02:03:40 PM  

Carn: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

The Titans.


It's creators all the way down.
 
2014-03-21 02:03:50 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Fubini: She's not arguing that this proves God exists

Someone didn't read TFA.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.


cogitate on the bolded part.
 
2014-03-21 02:04:06 PM  

doubled99: Atheist here
Fark religion threads are always fascinating. An overwhelming majority of posters here deride idiots for believing in the magical sky fairy, yet somehow over 70% of all Americans adults admit they believe in god.
I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


See, I don't know where I fall. I don't believe in a God, but I also don't disbelieve one. I'm in the 'I don't make a decision one way or the other until I see proof for or against.' camp on a lot of stuff. So while I haven't seen proof FOR a creator, I haven't seen actual evidence AGAINST one, either. As a result, as long as religious people aren't trying to cram it down my throat through laws, I'm pretty tolerant of them. I think the reason you see a lot of flak towards religious people here is that most of the stories are about them doing stupid shiat in the name of religion.

This blog, OTOH, is something religious based that I have no problem with at all.
 
2014-03-21 02:05:18 PM  
"So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it."

 OK. So, uh...why was it that a couple of days ago, prior to this story coming out, all you religious types were dead set against the big bang?

Let's face it... any scientific discovery made by humanity will be immediately spun to be proof of god by religious idiots. No matter how dumb, or how far they have to stretch, or how obvious the rest of us think they're being.
 
2014-03-21 02:05:39 PM  

doubled99: Atheist here Fark religion threads are always fascinating. An overwhelming majority of posters here deride idiots for believing in the magical sky fairy, yet somehow over 70% of all Americans adults admit they believe in god. I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


Pascal's Wager, it attempts to explain death bed behavior at any rate.
 
2014-03-21 02:05:49 PM  

negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?


You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.
 
2014-03-21 02:06:10 PM  

negativenull: Carn: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

The Titans.

It's creators all the way down.


I just created a noxious gas cloud around my anus.
 
2014-03-21 02:06:29 PM  

Ambivalence: Scientists find proof the black hole that swallowed the missing malaysia air jet was God's vengence on filthy shellfish eaters.


God wanted a universe populated only by shellfish? Cause one of the theories for how this universe came to be is that we are just the result of a collapse of a black hole in another dimension and all black holes in our universe will eventually collapse and create new dimensions and new universes.
 
2014-03-21 02:07:44 PM  

Fubini: There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science.


Actually, it's because too often it's rejection of science that goes against their beliefs and acceptance of science only when it seems to bolster their beliefs, especially when that acceptance is a bit of a stretch.

There are plenty of actual scientists that also believe, and only the rabid atheists have a problem with them. But hey, guess what: every faction has its assholes.
 
2014-03-21 02:08:34 PM  
Just keep moving that goal post Creationists. Keep moving it until we can't see you anymore.
 
2014-03-21 02:09:15 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-21 02:10:26 PM  

Fubini: You're assuming that the Bible has to be literally correct.

The Bible was never meant to be a technical how-to manual for creating the universe. You're the one arguing that it is.

Well it's good that the author and you are here to be able to explain to us which parts of the Bible are intended to be taken literally and factually and which parts are figurative stories.

She says that the Bible isn't intended as a scientific manual and then goes on to say that the ancient Hebrew readers would have been confused by such a thing, as if that is an explanation as to why it's not scientific. Apparently, if the ancient Hebrews hadn't been such dunces, the Bible would have been chock full of all the secrets of the universe.
 
2014-03-21 02:11:09 PM  

Blink: Wait a minute ...

I thought we proved the existence of god a while back by how well a banana fits in the human hand.


Behold the atheist's nightmare!
 
2014-03-21 02:11:36 PM  
i.imgur.com

I thought Homer already proved God didn't exist.
 
2014-03-21 02:11:51 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Someone didn't read TFA.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.


Actually I did.

She's still not arguing that God exists, she's arguing that our universe was caused or created by something outside of spacetime, and that a Christian God could serve as that first cause, and thereby there is no conflict between the account given in Genesis and the confirmation of an inflationary universe.

There are three hypothetical scenarios for the universe's global evolution.

There was nothing, and then the universe sprung into existence by itself.
The universe springs out of an underlying multiverse or other domain.
The universe has no start but is eternally going through bang/crunch cycles.

In the first case, the universe just spontaneously happens for no reason, and in fact there can never be a reason. I think most people would call that intellectually unsatisfying.

In the second case, there is in fact an external cause to the universe that is not in or of the universe.

The third case is possible, but also intellectually unsatisfying for various reasons (Occam's razor, no start no end, etc).

Out of those three choices, as we currently understand them, the third is really the most scientifically and intellectually palatable. She's absolutely right in saying that an inflationary universe adds support to the external-cause hypothesis. Note that she specifically does not say that this cause is or must be God ("something or someone").
 
2014-03-21 02:11:53 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs

That, and the article title is not "Scientists prove existence of god" but "Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?"

And we all know the rule about headlines phrased as yes/no questions.


Technically, that rule is for news headlines, because they wouldn't ask, if they could state unequivocally..
The rule doesn't really apply to opinion pieces and metaphysical philosophy in general.
 
2014-03-21 02:14:39 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Fubini: There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science.

Actually, it's because too often it's rejection of science that goes against their beliefs and acceptance of science only when it seems to bolster their beliefs, especially when that acceptance is a bit of a stretch.

There are plenty of actual scientists that also believe, and only the rabid atheists have a problem with them. But hey, guess what: every faction has its assholes.


The author is one of them, and plenty of otherwise fine Farkers seem to have a huge problem with her.
 
2014-03-21 02:14:41 PM  
If a Soul is supposedly Immortal. Wouldn't that mean Both ways? if you don't remember anything from before you were born, what makes you think that you'll know anything after you die? Just seems reasonable to me.
 
2014-03-21 02:15:23 PM  

wantingout: wasn't the big bang theory originally proposed by a catholic priest anyway? religion masquerading as science or something along those lines?


Catholics are quite clear that the Big Bang Theory does not conflict with their faith.

They just add God as a first cause.

Of course, they still get upset when you ask the followup "Ok, what caused God?".
 
2014-03-21 02:16:17 PM  

AteMyBrain: OK. So, uh...why was it that a couple of days ago, prior to this story coming out, all you religious types were dead set against the big bang?

Let's face it... any scientific discovery made by humanity will be immediately spun to be proof of god by religious idiots. No matter how dumb, or how far they have to stretch, or how obvious the rest of us think they're being.


One- if you didn't believe in the Big Bang before, because you thought it conflicted with your religion, why would you suddenly have a crisis of faith because some eggheads found interesting polarizations in the cosmic microwave background radiation?

You wouldn't. Nobody is switching sides.

Two- who here is spinning this into proof that God exists? No one is. The author of TFA isn't, and none of the commenters so far have done so.
 
2014-03-21 02:18:14 PM  
FTFA:
However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it.



How do people this stupid manage to breath unassisted?
 
2014-03-21 02:18:39 PM  
With all the billions of galaxies out there, with untold billions of planets, fundies keep saying God spends all his time worrying about "Earth" people? I think right now he's looking for someone to pop that zit on his ass.
 
2014-03-21 02:19:26 PM  
"breathe"

FTFM

/I blame Fark's terrible editing tools. After fighting with them just to get it to NOT make shiat italic when I didn't want it to for a good minute and a half...
 
2014-03-21 02:21:57 PM  

Cyclometh: How do people this stupid manage to breath unassisted?


Ok, so you accept that the universe had a definite beginning, but that nothing caused it to happen?

Give us your envisioned timeline, pre-inflationary epoch.
 
2014-03-21 02:23:04 PM  

Misconduc: What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.


Of course God exists; the only question is which one(s). And to answer that, we must look at the empirical evidence:
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-21 02:24:26 PM  

scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs


But Commentary on Fox News is completely indicative of their position in  news reporting according to the my friends who have GEDs (i.e. progressives).
 
2014-03-21 02:24:30 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

Your move, atheists
 
2014-03-21 02:25:01 PM  

MythDragon: [i.imgur.com image 850x628]

I thought Homer already proved God didn't exist.


Is there no place for the man with the 105 IQ?
 
2014-03-21 02:25:56 PM  
scarlettdecourcier.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-21 02:26:19 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.


He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.
 
2014-03-21 02:27:52 PM  

colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.


You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.
 
2014-03-21 02:28:37 PM  
I don't feel the need to "believe" but if it will make you shut up, fine, he exists.  Does that make you believers feel better?  Now, can you explain why he is such an asshole?  Feel free to tell him I said to go fark himself.
 
2014-03-21 02:29:44 PM  
oyster.ignimgs.com

"Your god is too small"
 
2014-03-21 02:30:42 PM  

meat0918: colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-03-21 02:32:06 PM  

BafflerMeal: meat0918: colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 293x475]


counterpoint

www.naderlibrary.com
 
2014-03-21 02:32:11 PM  

meat0918: colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.


you're asking a lot.  it may take me a few minutes...
 
2014-03-21 02:32:40 PM  
Oh look, people who dismiss science when it conflicts with their religion suddenly say science proves their religion.

Look, I don't necessarily have anything against Christian orthodoxy, but if you want to believe that God is real for self-evident reasons not observable by science, I don't see any reason to try and even fit science into the equation at all.
 
2014-03-21 02:33:20 PM  

colon_pow: our belief is superior to your speculation.

no, our speculation

prediction based on rigorous mathematical work which has now been verified by empirical observation is superior to your belief!

FTFY. Have a pretzel, troll!
=Smidge=
 
2014-03-21 02:33:39 PM  

Fubini: Ok, so you accept that the universe had a definite beginning, but that nothing caused it to happen?

Give us your envisioned timeline, pre-inflationary epoch.


There was no "pre-inflationary" epoch (at least, according to our current understanding). Saying "before the big bang" is like saying "behind the night" or "in front of love". It has no semantic meaning, and is- quite literally- a nonsense term.

We have no way of knowing what, if any, "cause" there was for such an event, because no possible information could be transmitted regarding it into our universe. Whatever the "cause" was, whether a deity, random chance or simply an iteration in an endless cycle, we will (probably) never know. The history of time and information ends at the singularity.

Substituting "god" for some imagined causal agent- for which no evidence exists, and in fact for which no evidence CAN exist (at least according to our current understanding)- is just stupid. It's weak-minded claptrap.
 
2014-03-21 02:35:18 PM  

Fubini: She's still not arguing that God exists, she's arguing that our universe was caused or created by something outside of spacetime, and that a Christian God could serve as that first cause, and thereby there is no conflict between the account given in Genesis and the confirmation of an inflationary universe.


You know what? You're right, she isn't arguing that her god exists. As a believer, she doesn't need to. What she is doing is taking recent scientific discoveries and adding her own b.s. by saying "If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. Hey, that sounds like the bible!"

Note that she specifically does not say that this cause is or must be God ("something or someone").

Again, FTFA: "it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it."

While she may not directly say "this means my god did it and the bible is true", the insinuation is palpable, especially when taken in context of the entire article. Again, she is taking science, and attributing it as evidence of an existing bias.
 
2014-03-21 02:36:30 PM  

What_do_you_want_now: [oyster.ignimgs.com image 610x343]

"Your god is too small"



I kept getting distracted thinking, "why are they torturing Sgt. Pepper's era George Harrison?"
 
2014-03-21 02:37:08 PM  

colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.


So everything everywhere always requires a creator except *THIS* one thing which doesn't.  Got it.
 
2014-03-21 02:38:44 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Fubini: She's still not arguing that God exists, she's arguing that our universe was caused or created by something outside of spacetime, and that a Christian God could serve as that first cause, and thereby there is no conflict between the account given in Genesis and the confirmation of an inflationary universe.

You know what? You're right, she isn't arguing that her god exists. As a believer, she doesn't need to. What she is doing is taking recent scientific discoveries and adding her own b.s. by saying "If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. Hey, that sounds like the bible!"

Note that she specifically does not say that this cause is or must be God ("something or someone").

Again, FTFA: "it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it."

While she may not directly say "this means my god did it and the bible is true", the insinuation is palpable, especially when taken in context of the entire article. Again, she is taking science, and attributing it as evidence of an existing bias.


do you not do the exact same thing?
 
2014-03-21 02:39:55 PM  

Fubini: Oh look, it's a religious person reconciling new scientific knowledge with their religion, not rejecting the science or asserting that Genesis literally happened.

BURN HIM AT THE F**KING STAKE.

HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Yay for the constant stream of nut jobs with high school educations clearing up the whole "existence of god" issue.  I bet she also has some valuable insights on the benefits of a flat tax.

RoxtarRyan: Your blog sucks.

lockers: Belief is proof enough so why search for facts?

exick: Every sentence I read makes me facepalm harder than the previous one. I'm going to need medical attention if I keep reading.


^This, Even Dawkins and Hitchens have said that a creator is just a good of theory as any other to explain what caused the big bang. The only thing I don't like about any religion is the intolerance from the extremists... but I have also met quite a few atheist extremists.
 
2014-03-21 02:40:12 PM  

negativenull: colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

So everything everywhere always requires a creator except *THIS* one thing which doesn't.  Got it.


everything in the physical universe, yes.
 
2014-03-21 02:41:45 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Misconduc: What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.

Of course God exists; the only question is which one(s). And to answer that, we must look at the empirical evidence:
[i.imgur.com image 500x642]


api.ning.com
 
2014-03-21 02:45:11 PM  

colon_pow:
He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.


But in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and a beginning can only exist inside temporal movement, so the word and God must have existed inside time. Time for the penguin on your TV to explode.
 
2014-03-21 02:48:58 PM  
static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-03-21 02:49:32 PM  

colon_pow: do you not do the exact same thing?


Since my bias actually has testable evidence to enforce it, sure. I'm ok with it.
 
2014-03-21 02:54:10 PM  

rickythepenguin: What_do_you_want_now: [oyster.ignimgs.com image 610x343]

"Your god is too small"


I kept getting distracted thinking, "why are they torturing Sgt. Pepper's era George Harrison?"


I KNEW/thought he looked familiar!
 
2014-03-21 02:54:27 PM  

grumpfuff: Ivo Shandor: Misconduc: What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.

Of course God exists; the only question is which one(s). And to answer that, we must look at the empirical evidence:
[i.imgur.com image 500x642]

[api.ning.com image 600x709]


Jesus promised to rid the world of evil.  Odin promised to rid the world of ice giants.  Now, I'm not saying one is real and one is fake, it's just that I'm still seeing a lot of evil, but not many ice giants these days.....
 
2014-03-21 02:54:59 PM  

Dansker: ArcadianRefugee: That, and the article title is not "Scientists prove existence of god" but "Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?"

And we all know the rule about headlines phrased as yes/no questions.

Technically, that rule is for news headlines, because they wouldn't ask, if they could state unequivocally..
The rule doesn't really apply to opinion pieces and metaphysical philosophy in general.


Point taken.

Dansker: ArcadianRefugee: Fubini: There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science.

Actually, it's because too often it's rejection of science that goes against their beliefs and acceptance of science only when it seems to bolster their beliefs, especially when that acceptance is a bit of a stretch.

There are plenty of actual scientists that also believe, and only the rabid atheists have a problem with them. But hey, guess what: every faction has its assholes.

The author is one of them, and plenty of otherwise fine Farkers seem to have a huge problem with her.


As I said, every faction has its assholes.

/also, it is a pretty stupid article
 
2014-03-21 03:00:06 PM  

doubled99: Atheist here
Fark religion threads are always fascinating. An overwhelming majority of posters here deride idiots for believing in the magical sky fairy, yet somehow over 70% of all Americans adults admit they believe in god.
I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


Or Fark is not a representative sample of the US population.
 
2014-03-21 03:00:13 PM  

Cyclometh: There was no "pre-inflationary" epoch (at least, according to our current understanding). Saying "before the big bang" is like saying "behind the night" or "in front of love". It has no semantic meaning, and is- quite literally- a nonsense term.


Quite wrong, sorry. You've also subtly confused my language, so let me be clear. The "Big Bang" was the origination of the universe, "time zero" so to speak. The "inflationary epoch" was a later period of time. The following link gives an overview of some hypotheticals that might have occurred after the big bang, but prior to inflation. (i.e. inflation didn't start immediately with the origination of the universe)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Universe#Very_early_u ni verse


Cyclometh: We have no way of knowing what, if any, "cause" there was for such an event, because no possible information could be transmitted regarding it into our universe. Whatever the "cause" was, whether a deity, random chance or simply an iteration in an endless cycle, we will (probably) never know. The history of time and information ends at the singularity.

Substituting "god" for some imagined causal agent- for which no evidence exists, and in fact for which no evidence CAN exist (at least according to our current understanding)- is just stupid. It's weak-minded claptrap.


Every piece of observational evidence in the history of mankind suggests that actions follow a cause-effect relationship. Whether we will ever be able to peer past inflation is a question up for debate, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't physical cause and effect prior to then.

We speculate about many things which we can never hope to understand absolutely. That doesn't mean that there is no value in asking the questions or that the pursuit is worthless. You've unilaterally declared that there can be no physical meaning prior to the end of inflation, which is just as an unwarranted assumption as any.
 
2014-03-21 03:00:33 PM  
Jesus Christ...
 
2014-03-21 03:01:08 PM  

udhq: grumpfuff: Ivo Shandor: Misconduc: What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.

Of course God exists; the only question is which one(s). And to answer that, we must look at the empirical evidence:
[i.imgur.com image 500x642]

[api.ning.com image 600x709]

Jesus promised to rid the world of evil.  Odin promised to rid the world of ice giants.  Now, I'm not saying one is real and one is fake, it's just that I'm still seeing a lot of evil, but not many ice giants these days.....



Wanna know how I know you didn't read the thread?
 
2014-03-21 03:01:48 PM  
What's that unwritten rule of journalism?  If you can answer the question in your article with "no", maybe you should reconsider writing said article?
 
2014-03-21 03:01:53 PM  

DeerNuts: Or Fark is not a representative sample of the US population.


No, we're all just farking brilliant here.
 
2014-03-21 03:02:55 PM  

Misconduc: Few years ago I went to college, there was a crazy chick spewing how Science cannot explain the big bang theory, let alone half of the universe, so in that case God must exist. I watched two drunk physic major's just drill the hell out of her for a good 20 minutes in which she couldn't even answer a single question on the law of physics.

What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.


Cool story, bro.
 
2014-03-21 03:03:01 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Misconduc: What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.

Of course God exists; the only question is which one(s). And to answer that, we must look at the empirical evidence:
[i.imgur.com image 500x642]


That's Thor...
 
2014-03-21 03:04:09 PM  

kimwim: DeerNuts: Or Fark is not a representative sample of the US population.

No, we're all just farking brilliant here.


Don't forget incredibly attractive. And athletic.

/gym, 26 minutes
 
2014-03-21 03:05:51 PM  

doubled99: Atheist here
Fark religion threads are always fascinating. An overwhelming majority of posters here deride idiots for believing in the magical sky fairy, yet somehow over 70% of all Americans adults admit they believe in god.
I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


Obviously. I mean, it's either that or Fark just does a better job of attracting atheists than it does of attracting religious people... but that would be impossible!
 
2014-03-21 03:06:01 PM  

RoxtarRyan: You know what? You're right, she isn't arguing that her god exists. As a believer, she doesn't need to. What she is doing is taking recent scientific discoveries and adding her own b.s. by saying "If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. Hey, that sounds like the bible!"

Note that she specifically does not say that this cause is or must be God ("something or someone").

Again, FTFA: "it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it."

While she may not directly say "this means my god did it and the bible is true", the insinuation is palpable, especially when taken in context of the entire article. Again, she is taking science, and attributing it as evidence of an existing bias.


You're committing a fallacy that many people do. The lack of evidence against a hypothesis does not itself constitute evidence that supports the hypothesis.  Showing that inflationary cosmology and the Bible are compatible does not answer whether God does or does not exist, does not answer whether God did or didn't have anything to do with creation.

You're reading things into the article based on your assumption that religious folks are just looking for any excuse to prop up a
hackneyed theory.
 
2014-03-21 03:06:02 PM  
"God" is a proper noun when referring to the God of the leading monotheistic religions, and should be capitalized.  The lowercase "god" is appropriate when referring to an unspecified person or thing of supreme value, such as a Greek god.

This is a simple lexical rule, and has nothing to do with beliefs.

/Eats
//shoots
///leaves
////CD's
//you're and your
 
2014-03-21 03:07:51 PM  

Great_Milenko: What's that unwritten rule of journalism?  If you can answer the question in your article with "no", maybe you should reconsider writing said article?


Rule #39726 of Farking: Check whether you're commenting on an opinion piece in the blog section or on journalism. Or not. See if I care. Any more beer in the fridge?

It used to unwritten, but I just ruined that.
 
2014-03-21 03:08:03 PM  

wantingout: wasn't the big bang theory originally proposed by a catholic priest anyway? religion masquerading as science or something along those lines?



No, not really. The catholic church actually has a pretty decent respect for science and does not have a problem with either the Big Bang Theory or evolution. Their general attitude seems to be that those two things are mechanisms God put in place and through which He works. I'm atheist and have a tremendous amount of respect for science and I'm ok with their view.

Georges Lemaitre took a look at Edwin Hubble's evidence that the entire universe was expanding and worked it backwards. He reasoned that if it is expanding then it is a little bigger today than it was yesterday. That means the day before it was a little smaller, the day before that even smaller, and so on.
 
2014-03-21 03:08:56 PM  

Telos: Obviously. I mean, it's either that or Fark just does a better job of attracting atheists than it does of attracting religious people... but that would be impossible!


If you accept that there are more atheists on Fark than otherwise, there are two hypotheses. First, Fark attracts atheists. Two, Fark creates atheists.

I'm willing to propose another theory, which is that the Fark atheists are just really vocal, and that religious people tend to classify anyone who does not explicitly agree with them as "atheist".
 
2014-03-21 03:11:33 PM  

grumpfuff: Wanna know how I know you didn't read the thread?


D'Oh!  So, I didn't....

That's a line from an old movie, I've never seen it in meme form, but, apparently it exists.
 
2014-03-21 03:13:31 PM  
So, this was in a religion blog, not the front page?    I'm not sure that I see the problem here.
 
2014-03-21 03:14:15 PM  
This is not surprising.  Any evidence that points to the universe having a beginning should naturally inspire questions about what started it, why at that specific moment, is this the only instance, is it a repeating event.  All questions that science has no answer for.  And also questions that pretty much every religion claim to have the answers for.
 
2014-03-21 03:14:32 PM  
I knew this was comming... I just knew it.  At least it isn't as bad as the Higgs Boson was.  But the meantime,  let us treat this with the respect it deserves.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-21 03:16:44 PM  
CNN has become the FOX News for stupid people who don't want all that political bias in their stupid.
 
2014-03-21 03:20:24 PM  

MythDragon: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 592x720]

Your move, atheists


Pee.
 
2014-03-21 03:24:32 PM  

BafflerMeal: meat0918: colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 293x475]


COVENANT YOU MUST STOP

YOU'LL SHATTER THE ARCH
 
2014-03-21 03:26:59 PM  

Fubini: Cyclometh: There was no "pre-inflationary" epoch (at least, according to our current understanding). Saying "before the big bang" is like saying "behind the night" or "in front of love". It has no semantic meaning, and is- quite literally- a nonsense term.

Quite wrong, sorry. You've also subtly confused my language, so let me be clear. The "Big Bang" was the origination of the universe, "time zero" so to speak. The "inflationary epoch" was a later period of time. The following link gives an overview of some hypotheticals that might have occurred after the big bang, but prior to inflation. (i.e. inflation didn't start immediately with the origination of the universe)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Universe#Very_early_u ni verse


Cyclometh: We have no way of knowing what, if any, "cause" there was for such an event, because no possible information could be transmitted regarding it into our universe. Whatever the "cause" was, whether a deity, random chance or simply an iteration in an endless cycle, we will (probably) never know. The history of time and information ends at the singularity.

Substituting "god" for some imagined causal agent- for which no evidence exists, and in fact for which no evidence CAN exist (at least according to our current understanding)- is just stupid. It's weak-minded claptrap.

Every piece of observational evidence in the history of mankind suggests that actions follow a cause-effect relationship. Whether we will ever be able to peer past inflation is a question up for debate, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't physical cause and effect prior to then.

We speculate about many things which we can never hope to understand absolutely. That doesn't mean that there is no value in asking the questions or that the pursuit is worthless. You've unilaterally declared that there can be no physical meaning prior to the end of inflation, which is just as an unwarranted assumption as any.



The technical language for this is:

1) First it went "boink"
2) Then it went "POW"
 
2014-03-21 03:28:14 PM  
Mikey1969: See, I don't know where I fall. I don't believe in a God, but I also don't disbelieve one. I'm in the 'I don't make a decision one way or the other until I see proof for or against.' camp on a lot of stuff. So while I haven't seen proof FOR a creator, I haven't seen actual evidence AGAINST one, either. As a result, as long as religious people aren't trying to cram it down my throat through laws, I'm pretty tolerant of them. I think the reason you see a lot of flak towards religious people here is that most of the stories are about them doing stupid shiat in the name of religion.

This blog, OTOH, is something religious based that I have no problem with at all.


Then you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.
 
2014-03-21 03:29:35 PM  
evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep god out of their brainwaves

/atheism is a religion
 
2014-03-21 03:30:52 PM  

Dansker: colon_pow:
He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

But in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and a beginning can only exist inside temporal movement, so the word and God must have existed inside time. Time for the penguin on your TV to explode.


sure He was there at the beginning.  He was there before the beginning. and that penguin will explode when the time is right.
 
2014-03-21 03:31:29 PM  

deadlyplatypus: That's Thor...


Yes, and the caption text is what Thor is saying to the reader. At least that's how I interpret it.
 
2014-03-21 03:33:57 PM  

RoxtarRyan: colon_pow: do you not do the exact same thing?

Since my bias actually has testable evidence to enforce it, sure. I'm ok with it.


fascinating.  so you have tested your evidence and proven that the physical universe came into existence on its own.

you should publish your work.
 
2014-03-21 03:34:46 PM  

Lapdance: If a Soul is supposedly Immortal. Wouldn't that mean Both ways? if you don't remember anything from before you were born, what makes you think that you'll know anything after you die? Just seems reasonable to me.


dj1hlxw0wr920.cloudfront.net
 
2014-03-21 03:38:15 PM  
HAHAHAHA...thats hilarious.
 
2014-03-21 03:38:37 PM  

Egoy3k: Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.


i like bacon
 
2014-03-21 03:40:11 PM  
shiat, we woke IDW from his slumber. None are safe.  The time of doom is upon us, all who reside within this thread must flee or they shall surely perish.
 
2014-03-21 03:43:03 PM  

kimwim: DeerNuts: Or Fark is not a representative sample of the US population.

No, we're all just farking brilliant here.


And therefore not a representative sample of the US population.
 
2014-03-21 03:43:33 PM  

colon_pow: fascinating. so you have tested your evidence and proven that the physical universe came into existence on its own.


Actually, the universe created itself for Stewie, so Stewie could create it.There was a TV special on it, perhaps you've seen it.
 
2014-03-21 03:44:42 PM  

AteMyBrain: "So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it."

 OK. So, uh...why was it that a couple of days ago, prior to this story coming out, all you religious types were dead set against the big bang?


Huh?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-big-b an g-theory-in-tune-with-creation-history/
 
2014-03-21 03:45:34 PM  

Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.


The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."
 
2014-03-21 03:45:38 PM  

noitsnot: 1) First it went "boink"
2) Then it went "POW"


1)cdn0.sbnation.com
FOR SCIENCE!!!1!

2)img.fark.net
FOR RELIGION1!111!1
 
2014-03-21 03:47:31 PM  

Egoy3k: shiat, we woke IDW from his slumber. None are safe.  The time of doom is upon us, all who reside within this thread must flee or they shall surely perish.


hmmm, it's been while

img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-21 03:47:35 PM  

colon_pow: Dansker: colon_pow:
He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

But in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and a beginning can only exist inside temporal movement, so the word and God must have existed inside time. Time for the penguin on your TV to explode.

sure He was there at the beginning.  He was there before the beginning.


Not according to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

and that penguin will explode when the time is right.

No argument there. Some metaphysical agreement is possible, afterall.
 
2014-03-21 03:47:50 PM  

grumpfuff: Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."


Because we all suddenly forgot what "agnostic" means?
 
2014-03-21 03:49:54 PM  

grumpfuff: Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."


No you only thought it did.  Atheist means the opposite of theist.  It always has. Just as atypical means the opposite of typical, and apolitical means the opposite of political.
 
2014-03-21 03:50:04 PM  

kling_klang_bed: I found proof that there is a God a long time ago right here on Earth, and he walks amongst us:

[www.metalsucks.net image 850x1131]


I'm sorry, but that is a false God.  I think you mean to link THIS image, instead:

cdn4.pitchfork.com
 
2014-03-21 03:50:20 PM  

grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."


i2.photobucket.com

you're starting to bore me, you're boring, i'm bored
 
2014-03-21 03:51:29 PM  

Egoy3k: grumpfuff: Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

No you only thought it did.  Atheist means the opposite of theist.  It always has. Just as atypical means the opposite of typical, and apolitical means the opposite of political.


Every single course I've taken, and book I've read, in philosophy, philosophy of religion, and comparative religion would like a word with you.
 
2014-03-21 03:52:53 PM  

Dr Dreidel: grumpfuff: Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Because we all suddenly forgot what "agnostic" means?


Yea, somehow agnostic went from being a category of its own as well as a descriptive, to only a descriptive. Not really sure why.
 
2014-03-21 03:53:27 PM  
There's a type of event in the current, observable universe that is taken as valid, accepted physics - particles springing into existence from the vacuum (which although also currently theorized not to be 'empty', is not populated with known, detectable particles).

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle can be phrased that for a certain Energy over a certain period of time (E*delta t),
it must be greater than 1/2*Planck's constant (h-bar if using radians).  Therefore, for a certain brief period of time delta-t, a particle or particle pair with net energy E could pop into existence and pop out of existence before it could be detected, without violating other known laws.

Stephen Hawking took this a step further and hypothesized that because it could happen, it does happen but we just can't detect it.  However, if an electron-positron pair popped into existence right on the event horizon of a black hole, one of these virtual particles would be unable to annihilate its partner within the delta-t time limit, and the other particle would get 'promoted' to a real particle, draining some of the gravitational mass of the black hole to conserve Energy.  Under this hypothesis, black holes should appear to be point sources of streaming electrons and positrons, and this has since been observed - called "Hawking Radiation" in his honor.

So here we have a case, consistent with all known and accepted laws of physics, in which a particle 'popped into being from nothingness'.  I have far less problem extrapolating this to the seed of a universe popping into existence from a meta-vacuum than I have with some bearded short-tempered storm god creating the entire universe by act of will and magic just to focus his entire attention on a wandering tribe of desert people on an insignificant planet in the unfashionable part of a spiral arm in one single galaxy among an uncountable population of galaxies.

The problem I have with assigning any aspect of the universe or metaverse to a 'god' is that you are expected to stop asking questions at that point, because all the remaining answers are 'god did it'.  When I stop asking questions, that is when I stop being a scientist - and I don't consider anyone a scientist who themselves have stopped questioning.  Engineers don't count.
 
2014-03-21 03:53:45 PM  

grumpfuff: Egoy3k: grumpfuff: Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

No you only thought it did.  Atheist means the opposite of theist.  It always has. Just as atypical means the opposite of typical, and apolitical means the opposite of political.

Every single course I've taken, and book I've read, in philosophy, philosophy of religion, and comparative religion would like a word with you.


Last time I checked 'See Spot Run' doesn't discuss religion.
 
2014-03-21 03:54:10 PM  
Dumb CSB -

I'm not a believer, but I want my kids to find their own path in life.  The oldest is 7, and recently even she came up with the argument from first cause.

We're sitting at dinner one night and she says "Mom and dad- if god created the universe then what created god?"

I've never wanted to hug her so much as that moment.
 
2014-03-21 03:55:46 PM  

Dr Dreidel: HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?

For some reason I get the sense that they used to, but no.

Ironically, babies being born, seeds growing into flowers, the cacophony of the forest, the tapestry of stars and other astronomic bodies as seen from Earth (or close to it) at night, and humanity's capacity for [art|compassion|rationalization|intelligence|speech|faith] are also "proof" of god, so why bother looking for physical evidence (or crowing that you found it) in the first place?


Truer words have rarely been spoken.  I remember standing out on a little hill in central New Mexico at night and not only seeing the "Milky Way" in all of its glory, but actually seeing the turning of the earth.

God is in the details and the beauty is there to behold.  Whether or not we look to the same Gods are not as important as looking to each other to reach out and embrace and help each other (hopefully in a safe and non-intrusive way ;-)  )  Beauty is there and we can find it amongst ourselves.
 
2014-03-21 03:59:14 PM  

netweavr: CNN has been psuedo-satire for like stopped being such blatant leftist shill for 5 years now. You get better journalism out of The Daily Mail

 
2014-03-21 03:59:18 PM  

kalvyn: kling_klang_bed: I found proof that there is a God a long time ago right here on Earth, and he walks amongst us:

[www.metalsucks.net image 850x1131]

I'm sorry, but that is a false God.  I think you mean to link THIS image, instead:

[cdn4.pitchfork.com image 525x250]


Who?
 
2014-03-21 04:03:00 PM  

rickythepenguin: Prank Call of Cthulhu: That's why opinions are like garage band demo tapes...nobody wants to hear yours.

fantasy football teams
fantasy football team names
Dream i had last night

crazy drug story from college
march madness bracket
backup march madness bracket
backup march madness bracket in separate march madness league


No.

We all want to hear the crazy drug stories from college.

/i need a nap.
 
2014-03-21 04:05:34 PM  

colon_pow: RoxtarRyan: colon_pow: do you not do the exact same thing?

Since my bias actually has testable evidence to enforce it, sure. I'm ok with it.

fascinating.  so you have tested your evidence and proven that the physical universe came into existence on its own.

you should publish your work.


We do know that the Big Bang happened because of empirical evidence, mathematical calculation supported by the evidence, observations, and experiments.
 
2014-03-21 04:06:37 PM  

lostcat: Subby, please don't make me have to defend things I don't want to defend...



Just, you know, try to be reasonable.


Contrary to what is taught in grade school, opinions can be wrong.
 
2014-03-21 04:07:33 PM  

Misconduc: Few years ago I went to college, there was a crazy chick spewing how Science cannot explain the big bang theory, let alone half of the universe, so in that case God must exist. I watched two drunk physic major's just drill the hell out of her for a good 20 minutes in which she couldn't even answer a single question on the law of physics.

What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.


At the same time or did they take turns? Why would they ask her questions while doing that?
 
2014-03-21 04:12:17 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: We do know that the Big Bang happened because of empirical evidence, mathematical calculation supported by the evidence, observations, and experiments.


Don't confuse him with facts, man. it just makes him feel... confused.
 
2014-03-21 04:14:48 PM  

Dansker: colon_pow: Dansker: colon_pow:
He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

But in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and a beginning can only exist inside temporal movement, so the word and God must have existed inside time. Time for the penguin on your TV to explode.

sure He was there at the beginning.  He was there before the beginning.

Not according to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

and that penguin will explode when the time is right.

No argument there. Some metaphysical agreement is possible, afterall.


the way I "understand" it, is God created this physical universe as a place for man to exist. Time and space began at the same time, in the beginning, the genesis.  The universe was created in all its glory because God does not fool around. He made it big and He made it beautiful beyond words.

However, there is another realm that we can hardly conceive, much less comprehend, that is beyond, before and outside of the created physical universe, what is referred to as the spiritual existence which is eternal.  That is where God resides. It's the location of his abode. He did not come into existence when the physical universe was created.  We did.

  If you want to know more, you'll have to subscribe to my newsletter.
 
2014-03-21 04:16:13 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: colon_pow: RoxtarRyan: colon_pow: do you not do the exact same thing?

Since my bias actually has testable evidence to enforce it, sure. I'm ok with it.

fascinating.  so you have tested your evidence and proven that the physical universe came into existence on its own.

you should publish your work.

We do know that the Big Bang happened because of empirical evidence, mathematical calculation supported by the evidence, observations, and experiments.


Yes.  We do.  No argument there.
 
2014-03-21 04:22:27 PM  

colon_pow: Zeppelininthesky: colon_pow: RoxtarRyan: colon_pow: do you not do the exact same thing?

Since my bias actually has testable evidence to enforce it, sure. I'm ok with it.

fascinating.  so you have tested your evidence and proven that the physical universe came into existence on its own.

you should publish your work.

We do know that the Big Bang happened because of empirical evidence, mathematical calculation supported by the evidence, observations, and experiments.

Yes.  We do.  No argument there.


We do not need god to make the Universe happen.
 
2014-03-21 04:25:36 PM  

Carn: [i44.tinypic.com image 465x346]

QED


Assholes will always be assholes... and by assholes i mean you.
 
2014-03-21 04:25:37 PM  

colon_pow: Dansker: colon_pow: Dansker: colon_pow:
He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

But in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and a beginning can only exist inside temporal movement, so the word and God must have existed inside time. Time for the penguin on your TV to explode.

sure He was there at the beginning.  He was there before the beginning.

Not according to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

and that penguin will explode when the time is right.

No argument there. Some metaphysical agreement is possible, afterall.

the way I "understand" it, is God created this physical universe as a place for man to exist. Time and space began at the same time, in the beginning, the genesis.  The universe was created in all its glory because God does not fool around. He made it big and He made it beautiful beyond words.

However, there is another realm that we can hardly conceive, much less comprehend, that is beyond, before and outside of the created physical universe, what is referred to as the spiritual existence which is eternal.  That is where God resides. It's the location of his abode. He did not come into existence when the physical universe was created.  We did.

  If you want to know more, you'll have to subscribe to my newsletter.


That's all fine and good, and if it makes your life more meaningful and helps you be less of a dick to people, great.

Just keep it out of the science classroom, because it is not a scientific explanation of anything.

That's my knee jerk reaction to the apologetics anymore.   Just keep it out of the public school science classroom.  Put it in a comparative religion or sociology class if you must, but I doubt the impartiality of the teachers.  In other words I worry it would all be "This is why these other religions are wrong and Christianity is right."

I know I learned a lot about Islam via a social studies class that was taught in an impartial way by a rather devout Christian, stuff that today would have people screaming "He's trying to covert them to Muslims!".  We also learned about Buddhism and Shintoism, and passed a water safety course when we took a few days off for the county sheriff to talk to us about it.
 
2014-03-21 04:31:46 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: colon_pow: RoxtarRyan: colon_pow: do you not do the exact same thing?

Since my bias actually has testable evidence to enforce it, sure. I'm ok with it.

fascinating.  so you have tested your evidence and proven that the physical universe came into existence on its own.

you should publish your work.

We do know that the Big Bang happened because of empirical evidence, mathematical calculation supported by the evidence, observations, and experiments.


The question was 'who fired the gun' or 'who made the gun', not, "show me evidence this man was shot".
 
2014-03-21 04:33:14 PM  

Sharksfan: Dumb CSB -

I'm not a believer, but I want my kids to find their own path in life.  The oldest is 7, and recently even she came up with the argument from first cause.

We're sitting at dinner one night and she says "Mom and dad- if god created the universe then what created god?"

I've never wanted to hug her so much as that moment.


Answer... what was there before the universe? did the universe sprout into existence from a spring? We do not know what exists outside the universe. Evolution before the universe COULD have created a god... or there may be nothing.

What did exist before the universe? when you have an answer... i will stop thinking that a "god" MIGHT exist.
 
2014-03-21 04:35:31 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Fubini: Oh look, it's a religious person reconciling new scientific knowledge with their religion, not rejecting the science or asserting that Genesis literally happened.

The problem with people doing it in this fashion is that hey already stakes his claim to already have an answer for everything (his god), so when approached with new science, he then twists the evidence to support his "ultimate" answer. This isn't science. This is moving goalposts so no matter the evidence, your already existing bias is always correct.

[ts3.mm.bing.net image 435x435]


img.fark.net
assets.diylol.com
 
2014-03-21 04:38:51 PM  

kling_klang_bed: kalvyn: kling_klang_bed: I found proof that there is a God a long time ago right here on Earth, and he walks amongst us:

[www.metalsucks.net image 850x1131]

I'm sorry, but that is a false God.  I think you mean to link THIS image, instead:

[cdn4.pitchfork.com image 525x250]

Who?


Blasphemer!  That is none other than Paul Westerberg!  Bow to his greatness!

cdn.americansongwriter.com

/only sorta kidding :)
 
2014-03-21 04:39:33 PM  

jeffjo52: Sharksfan: Dumb CSB -

I'm not a believer, but I want my kids to find their own path in life.  The oldest is 7, and recently even she came up with the argument from first cause.

We're sitting at dinner one night and she says "Mom and dad- if god created the universe then what created god?"

I've never wanted to hug her so much as that moment.

Answer... what was there before the universe? did the universe sprout into existence from a spring? We do not know what exists outside the universe. Evolution before the universe COULD have created a god... or there may be nothing.

What did exist before the universe? when you have an answer... i will stop thinking that a "god" MIGHT exist.


Anything "might" exist.

Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.
 
2014-03-21 04:41:54 PM  

meat0918: colon_pow: Dansker: colon_pow: Dansker: colon_pow:
He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

But in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and a beginning can only exist inside temporal movement, so the word and God must have existed inside time. Time for the penguin on your TV to explode.

sure He was there at the beginning.  He was there before the beginning.

Not according to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

and that penguin will explode when the time is right.

No argument there. Some metaphysical agreement is possible, afterall.

the way I "understand" it, is God created this physical universe as a place for man to exist. Time and space began at the same time, in the beginning, the genesis.  The universe was created in all its glory because God does not fool around. He made it big and He made it beautiful beyond words.

However, there is another realm that we can hardly conceive, much less comprehend, that is beyond, before and outside of the created physical universe, what is referred to as the spiritual existence which is eternal.  That is where God resides. It's the location of his abode. He did not come into existence when the physical universe was created.  We did.

  If you want to know more, you'll have to subscribe to my newsletter.

That's all fine and good, and if it makes your life more meaningful and helps you be less of a dick to people, great.

Just keep it out of the science classroom, because it is not a scientific explanation of anything.

That's my knee jerk reaction to the apologetics anymore.   Just keep it out of the public school science classroom.  Put it in a comparative religion or sociology class if you must, but I doubt the impartiality of the teachers.  In other words I worry it would all be "This is why these other religions are wrong and Christianity is right."

I know I learned a lot about Islam via a social studies class that was taught in an impartial way by a rather devout Christian, stuff that t ...


True, it's not a scientific explanation, it's way beyond that.  Science relates only to the physical universe.   Science is a tool.

Knowing this does indeed make my life more meaningful and makes me less of a dick to people.  I see all people as children of God, and many of them are dicks because they don't know any better.  they don't see the big picture.  It's a shame that they don't, but in many cases it's because they don't want to see it.  They have eyes, but they don't see, they have ears, but they don't hear.  They study the creation, but do not seek to know the creator.
 
2014-03-21 04:42:04 PM  

kalvyn: kling_klang_bed: kalvyn: kling_klang_bed: I found proof that there is a God a long time ago right here on Earth, and he walks amongst us:

[www.metalsucks.net image 850x1131]

I'm sorry, but that is a false God.  I think you mean to link THIS image, instead:

[cdn4.pitchfork.com image 525x250]

Who?

Blasphemer!  That is none other than Paul Westerberg!  Bow to his greatness!

[cdn.americansongwriter.com image 490x534]

/only sorta kidding :)


No idea who he is, but I'll check him out.
 
2014-03-21 04:43:24 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?


www.saviorsite.com

Do you grasp the meaning of any of your words?
 
2014-03-21 04:44:49 PM  

noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.


what is god?
 
2014-03-21 04:47:35 PM  

noitsnot: jeffjo52: Sharksfan: Dumb CSB -

I'm not a believer, but I want my kids to find their own path in life.  The oldest is 7, and recently even she came up with the argument from first cause.

We're sitting at dinner one night and she says "Mom and dad- if god created the universe then what created god?"

I've never wanted to hug her so much as that moment.

Answer... what was there before the universe? did the universe sprout into existence from a spring? We do not know what exists outside the universe. Evolution before the universe COULD have created a god... or there may be nothing.

What did exist before the universe? when you have an answer... i will stop thinking that a "god" MIGHT exist.

Anything "might" exist.

Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.


It is an accepted theory among scientists, including Dawkins and Hitchens... if you have daddy issues, that's not my fault. Stop projecting them on me...  start stripping and whoring yourself like everyone else.
 
2014-03-21 04:51:49 PM  

MythDragon: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 592x720]

Your move, atheists


Wha...what the...where did that come from?  I think I need to know where that came from.
 
2014-03-21 04:52:16 PM  
Cue an old picture that used to make its rounds of a janitor on a big ball of rock stepping out of an outhouse and lighting a cigarette.  Followed by shiat flying everywhere including one that winds up being earth
 
2014-03-21 04:53:20 PM  

I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?


I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.
 
2014-03-21 04:55:55 PM  

jeffjo52: hat did exist before the universe? when you have an answer... i will stop thinking that a "god" MIGHT exist.


Then it is equally possible that the universe sprang from a remnants of a half-uneaten taco left on a dashboard of an '87 Chevy. As long as we're imagining things, all things must be considered.
 
2014-03-21 05:03:29 PM  

syrynxx: I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?

I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.


or it could be that before the flood, the atmosphere held a lot more moisture and the sun's rays didn't hit the earth like they did after the flood, and rainbows weren't seen until after.
 
2014-03-21 05:05:50 PM  

syrynxx: I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?

I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.


Don't bother, you're arguing with a known idiot.
 
2014-03-21 05:06:50 PM  

colon_pow: syrynxx: I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?

I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.

or it could be that before the flood, the atmosphere held a lot more moisture and the sun's rays didn't hit the earth like they did after the flood, and rainbows weren't seen until after.


This is why people don't take you seriously, you know that right?
 
2014-03-21 05:06:51 PM  

colon_pow: or it could be that before the flood, the atmosphere held a lot more moisture and the sun's rays didn't hit the earth like they did after the flood, and rainbows weren't seen until after.


images.sodahead.com

Dude, you said you had a newsletter, I want in
 
2014-03-21 05:09:09 PM  

colon_pow: syrynxx: I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?

I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.

or it could be that before the flood, the atmosphere held a lot more moisture and the sun's rays didn't hit the earth like they did after the flood, and rainbows weren't seen until after.


Didn't the waters recede? So wouldn't the amount of moisture be the same before and after the flood?  Where did you find that little nugget of absurdity?
 
2014-03-21 05:09:30 PM  

trappedspirit: MythDragon: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 592x720]

Your move, atheists

Wha...what the...where did that come from?  I think I need to know where that came from.


I wish I knew. Think it's probably a hoax. I really want to believe no one is that dumb. I really do.
 
2014-03-21 05:13:31 PM  

syrynxx: I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?

I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.


in most cases do you think people believe that god is a physical thing?

for example, when i asked about 'god' did you imagine a physical thing?
 
2014-03-21 05:17:48 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Don't bother, you're arguing with a known idiot.


does asking a question or answering a question = "arguing"?

Idiots are known by the idiotic things they say.
 
2014-03-21 05:18:00 PM  

Egoy3k: colon_pow: syrynxx: I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?

I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.

or it could be that before the flood, the atmosphere held a lot more moisture and the sun's rays didn't hit the earth like they did after the flood, and rainbows weren't seen until after.

Didn't the waters recede? So wouldn't the amount of moisture be the same before and after the flood?  Where did you find that little nugget of absurdity?


yes, the waters receded, but things were different.  the world was no longer a tropical paradise.
 
2014-03-21 05:20:51 PM  

colon_pow: Egoy3k: colon_pow: syrynxx: I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?

I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.

or it could be that before the flood, the atmosphere held a lot more moisture and the sun's rays didn't hit the earth like they did after the flood, and rainbows weren't seen until after.

Didn't the waters recede? So wouldn't the amount of moisture be the same before and after the flood?  Where did you find that little nugget of absurdity?

yes, the waters receded, but things were different.  the world was no longer a tropical paradise.


OK dude calm down I won't ask you to break character.
 
2014-03-21 05:30:09 PM  

Delta1212: lostcat: Subby, please don't make me have to defend things I don't want to defend...

Just, you know, try to be reasonable.

Contrary to what is taught in grade school, opinions can be wrong.


Yesss...That's true. But when a publication clearly marks an article as "Opinion," it means that the publication is not suggesting that the opinion is true, or even that the publication agrees with the opinion.

Anyone suggesting that CNN is reporting this as news comes across as clueless.
 
2014-03-21 05:34:56 PM  

Egoy3k: colon_pow: Egoy3k: colon_pow: syrynxx: I drunk what: noitsnot: Thinking god "might" exist is just our hormones wanting a daddy to be around.

what is god?

I define 'god' as 'a bundled explanation for things which people otherwise do not understand'.

Thousands of years ago, a rainbow in the sky was something which people did not understand - they attributed it to 'god'.  In college, I calculated frequency-based diffraction and reflection through a spherical-model raindrop, and derived a formula for a rainbow (even though in reality they're more like donuts than spheres).  To me, a rainbow is not caused by 'god' - it is caused by light bending when it travels from air to water and back to air.  To an ignorant (=/= stupid) person who doesn't understand optics, a rainbow may still be due to 'god' in their mind.

or it could be that before the flood, the atmosphere held a lot more moisture and the sun's rays didn't hit the earth like they did after the flood, and rainbows weren't seen until after.

Didn't the waters recede? So wouldn't the amount of moisture be the same before and after the flood?  Where did you find that little nugget of absurdity?

yes, the waters receded, but things were different.  the world was no longer a tropical paradise.

OK dude calm down I won't ask you to break character.


see Genesis 1: 6-7 for the explanation.

And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."  7So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.
 
2014-03-21 05:35:59 PM  

grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."


Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.
 
2014-03-21 05:39:54 PM  

RoxtarRyan: jeffjo52: hat did exist before the universe? when you have an answer... i will stop thinking that a "god" MIGHT exist.

Then it is equally possible that the universe sprang from a remnants of a half-uneaten taco left on a dashboard of an '87 Chevy. As long as we're imagining things, all things must be considered.


I didn't say it didn't you halfwit fark... scummy little coonts like you ARE the problem. A theory is a theory... until either proven or disproved. STOP being one of those atheist coonts who act like a stuck up know it all. You don't know shiat about the beginning... and know even less about "TIME".
 
2014-03-21 05:41:17 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.


perhaps you lads would be more productive arguing about whether or not paperclips are atheists?  maybe you could have a pedantic battle to see who is more technically correct?

i like bacon
 
2014-03-21 05:44:25 PM  
just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?
 
2014-03-21 05:52:13 PM  
Google exists.
Google is God.
Therefore, God exists.

Google came into existence in 1998, 16 years ago.
The universe came into existence approximately 13.8 billion years ago.
16 years ago is more recent than 13.8 billion years ago.
Causation follows a chronological order from cause to effect.
Google could not have created the universe.
Google did not create the universe.
As established, Google is God.
Therefore, God did not create the universe.
 
2014-03-21 05:55:16 PM  

jeffjo52:
What did exist before the universe? when you have an answer... i will stop thinking that a "god" MIGHT exist.


As part of the time-space continuum, time doesn't exist seperately from the universe , so there is no "before" except perhaps in another universe.
 
2014-03-21 05:57:43 PM  

jeffjo52: and know even less about "TIME".


I know it's a cube, which is more than you.
 
2014-03-21 06:08:23 PM  

I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?


The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and are rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver.
 
2014-03-21 06:16:58 PM  

jeffjo52: A theory is a theory... until either proven or disproved.


Not when the word is used as a scientific term. Scientific theories are not "proven" or "disproven", they are supported or contradicted by evidence. When contradicted, they tend to either be discarded or adjusted to fit with new knowledge.

You don't know shiat about the beginning... and know even less about "TIME".

I know it's one of my favourite ELO albums, and least favorite international magazines. Bowie's version is pretty good.
 
2014-03-21 06:17:12 PM  

Dansker: I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?

The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and are rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver.


i'd be happy to share IDW's definition if that would help?  blue gargoyle should be sufficient to proceed

on the other hand i have grown tired of listening to the endless wastes of time between the mehtheists and the apatheists and whether or not paperclips are atheists
 
2014-03-21 06:19:32 PM  

I drunk what: Dansker: I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?

The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and are rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver.

i'd be happy to share IDW's definition if that would help?  blue gargoyle should be sufficient to proceed

on the other hand i have grown tired of listening to the endless wastes of time between the mehtheists and the apatheists and whether or not paperclips are atheists


I have a sinking feeling that we've had almost exactly this conversation before, so I say we both just get the hell out of here and find something better to do with what remains of our lives.
 
2014-03-21 06:23:23 PM  
1)  The piece is clearly marked as opinion

2)  Anyone who believes the Bible gives a literal account of creation is a moron

3)  Anyone who believes science establishes objective "facts" doesn't understand what science is or how the scientific process works  (theory>observation>new theory>repeat ad infinitum)

4)  Since even the most robust scientific cosmology stops at the big bang, it ultimately explains nothing

5)  A rabbit just ran by my office window - sometimes there are deer
 
2014-03-21 06:28:57 PM  

Dansker: I drunk what: Dansker: I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?

The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and are rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver.

i'd be happy to share IDW's definition if that would help?  blue gargoyle should be sufficient to proceed

on the other hand i have grown tired of listening to the endless wastes of time between the mehtheists and the apatheists and whether or not paperclips are atheists

I have a sinking feeling that we've had almost exactly this conversation before, so I say we both just get the hell out of here and find something better to do with what remains of our lives.


did it result in one of us confessing our appreciation of pork bellies?

if you have a better way to phrase the categories and can effectively communicate with a broad-common audience, we'd be happy to hear it

in the mean time i default to blue gargoyle to avoid the silly definition wars
 
2014-03-21 06:29:06 PM  

jeffjo52: Even Dawkins and Hitchens have said that a creator is just a good of theory as any other to explain what caused the big bang. The only thing I don't like about any religion is the intolerance from the extremists... but I have also met quite a few atheist extremists


A "Creationist" is, by definition, someone who believes the creation myth of God making the universe in six days.  Scientifically we know this to be absolute nonsense.  If you choose to believe that God started the universe with the Big Bang, you're in good company.  The Catholic Church (finally!) supports this view.  As no one can possibly postulate what existed before the primordial singularity blew out creating space-time and the laws of physics that rule our reality, I suppose saying the root is God is as good as anything.

If you want equal time on Cosmos to demonstrate that God created the Earth in 6 days, go back to eating paint chips.
 
2014-03-21 06:31:02 PM  

trippdogg: 2)  Anyone who believes the Bible gives a literal account of creation is a moron


what evidence led you to believe it was being figurative? what was literally occurring btw?
 
2014-03-21 06:32:23 PM  

AngryDragon: A "Creationist" is, by definition, someone who believes the creation myth of God making the universe in six days.


Nope.  The "myth" part was a nice bonus though.
 
2014-03-21 06:36:24 PM  

I drunk what: AngryDragon: A "Creationist" is, by definition, someone who believes the creation myth of God making the universe in six days.

Nope.  The "myth" part was a nice bonus though.


Please clarify.  Because my Religious History class in high school, taught by a Benedictine nun in a Catholic School, used that specific terminology
 
2014-03-21 06:41:36 PM  

Egoy3k: grumpfuff: Egoy3k: grumpfuff: Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

No you only thought it did.  Atheist means the opposite of theist.  It always has. Just as atypical means the opposite of typical, and apolitical means the opposite of political.

Every single course I've taken, and book I've read, in philosophy, philosophy of religion, and comparative religion would like a word with you.

Last time I checked 'See Spot Run' doesn't discuss religion.


So you just go straight to ad hominems? Nice.

Anyway, my Philosophy degree is from Rutgers. Comparing one of the top philosophy programs in the world to See Spot Run is kind of silly.
 
2014-03-21 06:44:28 PM  

Fubini: HotWingConspiracy: So you don't see the folly in looking for proof of god? Also, come off of your cross. Also, it was generally christians burning people at the stake for imagined slights against their god.

Is this person looking for "proof of God"? No, she's not- she's fitting new scientific fact into her religious worldivew. She's actually arguing the exact negation of your statement: She's demonstrating how this new scientific evidence does not imply the absence of God.

If P is "inflationary universe" and Q is "God exists", you're saying that she's arguing that P implies Q. She's actually arguing ~(P implies ~Q). Or, more simply, P and Q- she believes both that God exists and that there's an inflationary universe.

There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science. The reality is that they just hate religion, or that they hate Christians, and they're just going to be dickwads about it whenever the topic comes up.


ABSOLUTE THIS! With a Baileys on the rocks for dessert.
 
2014-03-21 06:46:32 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.


Disbelief is not the same as not having a belief.
 
2014-03-21 06:51:26 PM  

I drunk what: Dansker:
I have a sinking feeling that we've had almost exactly this conversation before, so I say we both just get the hell out of here and find something better to do with what remains of our lives.

did it result in one of us confessing our appreciation of pork bellies?


I certainly can't prove that it didn't. Seems likely.

if you have a better way to phrase the categories and can effectively communicate with a broad-common audience, we'd be happy to hear it

So, you didn't mean the kind of people I said? Either way and regardless of fine tuning of the definition of "gnostic", my answer stands: People who claim certain knowledge beyond strong conviction on the question of divine existence are very rare (or very quiet), and generally not taken seriously.
But it kinda depends on which god we're talking about, if any one specifically.

You must have asked the question before. Has anyone ever said "Yes, I'm one of those!"?
 
2014-03-21 06:58:47 PM  
In my screenplay some guy is close to proving God exists and various groups (Including the church) try to stop him.
 
2014-03-21 07:01:06 PM  

I drunk what:
in the mean time i default to blue gargoyle to avoid the silly definition wars


Silly wars/sparkling repartee & witty banter. Tomahto/tomato.
 
2014-03-21 07:22:48 PM  

Dansker: I drunk what: just out of curiosity, are there any gnostic theists here? or gnostic atheists?

The Gnostics were Christian sects that believed they had speciel knowledge, that Jesus had kept from most of his disciples. That graph you posted is not really a solid source of definitions - Blue Gargoyle is not an authority on theological terms, just some Farker who put at image together for a thread years ago, presumably because he was tired of typing his opinion over and over again. He could have chosen a much simpler solution to his problem, but here we are.

If you mean people who claim that they can prove conclusively that Jehova or other gods exist or don't, they are extremely few, mostly satirical, and arre rarely taken seriously by anyone round these parts since they inevitably fail to deliver

. I am an anthropology major who minored in religious studies (yes, I had a life before tentacle porn). Blue Gargoyle's chart is correct. Gnostic and agnostic are modifiers. Theist means believes in a god(s). Atheist means does not believe in a god(s). Gnostic comes from the word gnosis which means knowledge. A gnostic is one she believes we can know god(s) exist. Evangelical Christians are an example of a gnostic faith. They believe you can know, through personal revelation, that their god exists. When people capitalize the word they're usually referring to one of the early Christian gnostic sects, usually the Greek Gnostics. Agnostic simply means "without knowledge". This means people who believe it is simply not possible for a person to know if a god(s) exist. They refute the personal revelation of Evangelical gnostics because they believe you can never be sure if your personal revelation is real or simply psychosis. Gnostic beliefs are more common among theists than atheists but there are gnostic atheists who believe science and reason provided ample evidence to prove god doesn't exist. They wear trilbies which they call fedoras and are very euphoric. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists because they believe by definition god(s) sit outside the scope of science. We can't test for god so just remove it from the equation. Now I know to the layperson that agnostic has come to mean sanctimonious prick who judges everyone else as inferior but words have meaning. They can say gnostic means tractor and agnostic means kitty cat and it won't make them right.
 
2014-03-21 07:22:57 PM  

grumpfuff: ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness1.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic2 ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.

Disbelief is not the same as not having a belief.


Very good. Now, let me say it again for the cheap seats:

I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief. It didn't. Thus, the OP's statement that "suddenly it changed" is incorrect.

/and thanks for highlighting "have no faith" (I repeated above for your convenience). "Have no", to you, is an active thing? Sounds pretty passive to me. Sounds like a simple "lack".
//also see "godlessness"
1 go'dless, a. Without a god ; not recognizing God
2 sceptic n. ... agnostic, (pop.) atheist; person of sceptical habit of mind, or unconvinced of truth of particular fact or theory
 
2014-03-21 07:32:57 PM  

jayessell: In my screenplay some guy is close to proving God exists and various groups (Including the church) try to stop him.


There was a neat short story I read about this sect that believed they could communicate with god and thus prove his existence and thus bring about world peace because we would all at last be able to worship the one true god. They ended up succeeding only to discover that god was so far advanced beyond us that he had no idea we even existed and that when he became aware of our existence we were so far beneath him that he didn't care and went back to ignoring us.
 
2014-03-21 07:34:31 PM  

Ghastly: jayessell: In my screenplay some guy is close to proving God exists and various groups (Including the church) try to stop him.

There was a neat short story I read about this sect that believed they could communicate with god and thus prove his existence and thus bring about world peace because we would all at last be able to worship the one true god. They ended up succeeding only to discover that god was so far advanced beyond us that he had no idea we even existed and that when he became aware of our existence we were so far beneath him that he didn't care and went back to ignoring us.


Daddy would never do that.
 
2014-03-21 07:40:59 PM  
I would argue that most people who question the Universe being created by God or chance are agnotics, NOT athiests.  I consider myself an agnostic, and I would be more than willing to believe in God and that he/she/it created the Universe if there were some proof of their existence.  But there is no proof (outside of faith) that God exists.  Science (up to now) has shown the reasons why the Universe exists and why laws of nature exist.

The sticking point is the starting point.  While people argue that God has always existed (and therefore created the Universe), why is it so hard to make a shift in thinking and believe that the Universe has always existed, without a 'watchmaker' or God?
 
2014-03-21 07:42:42 PM  

noitsnot: Ghastly: jayessell: In my screenplay some guy is close to proving God exists and various groups (Including the church) try to stop him.

There was a neat short story I read about this sect that believed they could communicate with god and thus prove his existence and thus bring about world peace because we would all at last be able to worship the one true god. They ended up succeeding only to discover that god was so far advanced beyond us that he had no idea we even existed and that when he became aware of our existence we were so far beneath him that he didn't care and went back to ignoring us.

Daddy would never do that.


No, he'll just get drunk then whip our ass with a hotwheel track.
 
2014-03-21 07:46:54 PM  

Ghastly: Blue Gargoyle's chart is correct.


That depends how you define "asserting knowledge" and "god(s)"

Evangelical Christians are an example of a gnostic faith.>/em>
They believe you can know, through personal revelation, that their god exists.


Yes, but not "know" in the sense of being able to prove, which is one reason Blue Gargoyle's definitions are too loose to hold up.
If IDW wants to see the hands of people who would say that they are personally entirely convinced one way or the other, he'll get a different count than if he asks for those who think they can prove it.
So I'm suggesting that to get a clear answer, it would be wiser to spend a few more words to say exactly what he means, than insist on using labels, whose meaning drifts over time and depending on context, and which, even in that illustration, are ambiguously defined.

Now I seriously have to get off this philosophical moebius strip before I really lose my mind. I may be insomniac, but I'm not THAT desperate for entertainment.
 
2014-03-21 07:52:12 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: I would argue that most people who question the Universe being created by God or chance are agnotics, NOT athiests.  I consider myself an agnostic, and I would be more than willing to believe in God and that he/she/it created the Universe if there were some proof of their existence.  But there is no proof (outside of faith) that God exists.  Science (up to now) has shown the reasons why the Universe exists and why laws of nature exist.

The sticking point is the starting point.  While people argue that God has always existed (and therefore created the Universe), why is it so hard to make a shift in thinking and believe that the Universe has always existed, without a 'watchmaker' or God?


Once again, agnostic is an adjective that modifies the noun atheist. You can have no belief in a god and still believe it is not possible to know with certainty that a god exists..thatthatthatthaththt meanmeanmeanmeameamem doesn'tdoesntdoesndoesndoesdoedod itititii butbutbutbubub ,theisttheisttheisttheistheitheithetheththt ororooototo atheistatheistatheistatheisatheiatheatheathata totot superiorsuperiorsuperiorsuperiosuperisuperisupersupersupesupesupsus somethingsomethingsomethingsomethinsomethisomethsomethsometsomesomsos meansmeansmeanmeanmeameamem itititii likelikelikeliklilil "agnosticagnostivagnostiagnostiagnostagnosagnoagnagnagaga" wordwordwordworwowow thethetheththt useuseusu totot likelikelikeliklilil peoplepeoplepeoplepeoplpeoppeopeopep thatthatthatthaththt knowknowknowknoknknk Iii
 
2014-03-21 07:56:19 PM  
Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.
 
2014-03-21 07:57:09 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness1.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic2 ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.

Disbelief is not the same as not having a belief.

Very good. Now, let me say it again for the cheap seats:

I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief. It didn't. Thus, the OP's statement that "suddenly it changed" is incorrect.

/and thanks for highlighting "have no faith" (I repeated above for your convenience). "Have no", to you, is an active thing? Sounds pretty passive to me. Sounds like a simple "lack".
//also see "godlessness"
1 go'dless, a. Without a god ; not recognizing God
2 sceptic n. ... agnostic, (pop.) atheist; person of sceptical habit of mind, or unconvinced of truth of particular fact or theory


Substitute "opinion" for "belief." Is not having an opinion about something the same as having a negative opinion of something?
 
2014-03-21 07:59:15 PM  

Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.


You stuck your tablet in your pants and posted.

Admit it.
 
2014-03-21 08:06:38 PM  

Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.


Yet you are willing to label me an atheist when  I am nothing of the type.  You would rather argue that an agnostic is an atheist, it's just a matter of 'labeling'.  While I will agree with you that there are 'agnostic atheists', this does not also mean that all agnostics are atheists and that all atheists are agnostics.

If proof came to light that scientifically proved the existence of a deity, I would be MORE than willing to believe that one exists.  Until such time, I can neither prove or disprove that one exists and will continue to believe that while it may be possible for a deity to exist, science has still not shown the proof of such existence.
 
2014-03-21 08:06:49 PM  

noitsnot: Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.

You stuck your tablet in your pants and posted.

Admit it.


I like to type with my trouser stylus.
 
2014-03-21 08:09:37 PM  

grumpfuff: ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: ArcadianRefugee: grumpfuff: The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1828):
atheist: One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
atheism: The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
disbelieve: Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit.

Chambers's twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God.
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God.
disbelieve: to refuse belief or credit to

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1919):
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness1.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to (person or statement &c.) ; be a sceptic2 ; have no faith in.


I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief.

Disbelief is not the same as not having a belief.

Very good. Now, let me say it again for the cheap seats:

I see little in there to indicate atheism/atheist previously meant solely an active disbelief. It didn't. Thus, the OP's statement that "suddenly it changed" is incorrect.

/and thanks for highlighting "have no faith" (I repeated above for your convenience). "Have no", to you, is an active thing? Sounds pretty passive to me. Sounds like a simple "lack".
//also see "godlessness"
1 go'dless, a. Without a god ; not recognizing God
2 sceptic n. ... agnostic, (pop.) atheist; person of sceptical habit of mind, or unconvinced of truth of particular fact or theory

Substitute "opinion" for "belief." Is not having an opinion about something the same as having a negative opinion of something?


Also, something on activity and passivity. Having a belief or disbelief in something is the very definition of activity. You have analyzed evidence and come to a conclusion. The belief or disbelief does not just pop into your head. Sure, once you have arrived at that belief or disbelief, it does become passive(unless you reanalyze evidence), but arriving at that stance is the very definition of active.
 
2014-03-21 08:14:34 PM  
"Opinion" piece by A. J. "Wack-o" Wickman.
 
2014-03-21 08:19:21 PM  
Sorry, Ghastly, I honestly can't find any sources that describe Christianity in general as a "gnostic faith". It doesn't seem to be a common usage.
 
2014-03-21 08:28:57 PM  
A final desperate thought: In the Bible, "to know" someone usually means having sex with them. So does that make gnostic theist god farkers?
 
2014-03-21 08:41:54 PM  

Dansker: Sorry, Ghastly, I honestly can't find any sources that describe Christianity in general as a "gnostic faith". It doesn't seem to be a common usage.


Pentecostals are a gnostic sect. They believe you can know for a fact that god exists because when you are born again the spirit of god enters you and reveals itself to you. They also believe that god will reveal himself to you through prayer and meditation. They KNOW god exists and they only reason other people aren't Pentecostals is because they have not known god yet and once they do, of course they will convert. I grew up Pentecostal and they are very much a gnostic faith. Other evangelical faiths are similar. They KNOW for a fact that god exists because they have experienced personal revelation of gods existence in their lives. To them it is just as much a fact as the sky being blue and water being wet.
 
2014-03-21 08:56:27 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.

Yet you are willing to label me an atheist when  I am nothing of the type.  You would rather argue that an agnostic is an atheist, it's just a matter of 'labeling'.  While I will agree with you that there are 'agnostic atheists', this does not also mean that all agnostics are atheists and that all atheists are agnostics.

If proof came to light that scientifically proved the existence of a deity, I would be MORE than willing to believe that one exists.  Until such time, I can neither prove or disprove that one exists and will continue to believe that while it may be possible for a deity to exist, science has still not shown the proof of such existence.


I'm not labelling you anything. I don't know if you believe in a god(s) or not.

If you believe in a god you are a theist.
If you are without believe in a god then you are an atheist.

It's really not complicated.

If you believe it is possible to know a god does or does not exist you are a gnostic.
If you believe it in not possible to know a god does or does not exist you are agnostic.

I do not believe in a god. I do not believe it is possible to know if a god does or does not exist. Thus I am an atheist and because I don't believe it is possible to know if a god does or does not exist I am an agnostic atheist.

Now I'm completely open to the possibility of a god existing. If evidence that proved the existence of god was somehow produced then I would no longer be an agnostic atheist, I would be a gnostic theist. Such evidence has not been produced so I don't believe in a god. I believe it may be possible a god exists, but I don't believe in one.

It's really that simple. I understand the need to feel unique. I understand the need to feel special. And I understand the need to feel superior. These are are very basic human desires. However, it is not necessary to make up over complex definitions for already well defined words in order to satisfy those desires.

Now if we had time I could go through the list, name each god and ask you "do you believe this god exists", but there are tens of thousands of them and by the time we got to Zeus people would be pretty sick of it. Being open to the possibility of whether or not a god exists is not the same as believing that god exists.

I do not believe in leprechauns. I can't say with 100% certainty that leprechauns do not exist. If evidence proved the existence of leprechauns I would believe in leprechauns. I am open to review the possibilities that leprechauns exist.

I still don't believe leprechauns exist.

It's the same way with god.
 
2014-03-21 09:06:02 PM  

grumpfuff: So you just go straight to ad hominems? Nice.

Anyway, my Philosophy degree is from Rutgers. Comparing one of the top philosophy programs in the world to See Spot Run is kind of silly.


Maybe you should write one of your English professors from Rutgers and ask him or her to explain the use of 'a' as a prefix in the English language then.
 
2014-03-21 09:40:43 PM  

What_do_you_want_now: [oyster.ignimgs.com image 610x343]

"Your god is too small"


Damn I had a hard time getting past Seth McFarlane's horrible Italian accent. He might just as well added "Mama Mia! I-a need a some mora Spaghetti!"

/Also, Teach the Controversy
 www.timecube.com
 
2014-03-21 10:10:05 PM  

Egoy3k: grumpfuff: So you just go straight to ad hominems? Nice.

Anyway, my Philosophy degree is from Rutgers. Comparing one of the top philosophy programs in the world to See Spot Run is kind of silly.

Maybe you should write one of your English professors from Rutgers and ask him or her to explain the use of 'a' as a prefix in the English language then.


It means without.

Theism is derived from the Greek word theos which means "god", it and it's Latin equivalent deus are derived the the Sanskrit dyaus which means "the sky". Dyaus Pater was the "King of All Gods" in the ancient Aryan religion (real Aryans, not Hitler's bullshiat Aryans). From Dyaus Pater we got Zeus in Greek mythology and Zu Pater in Roman mythology (Jupiter). A lot of western religion traces its roots to ancient Aryan religion.

Anyways I digress, atheist simply means "without god".

Gnostic is from the Greek work gnosis meaning "knowledge". Agnostic simply means "without knowledge".
 
2014-03-21 10:14:09 PM  
grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.
 
2014-03-21 11:04:15 PM  
The sad sad truth is that both are equally wrong.

There has to be something OUTSIDE in order for the waves to persist within.
 
2014-03-21 11:55:33 PM  

I drunk what: trippdogg: 2)  Anyone who believes the Bible gives a literal account of creation is a moron

what evidence led you to believe it was being figurative? what was literally occurring btw?


I don't believe the people who wrote the Judeo-Christian creation myth were being figurative - I believe they were either trying to scam someone... or their kid was afraid of the dark and they were trying to get them to sleep - in other words, the same reasons people continue to propagate religion today.

Currently, the model for the foundation of the known physical universe most consistent with observable data is what is commonly known as the Big Bang Theory.

Next.
 
2014-03-22 12:12:23 AM  

trippdogg: I drunk what: trippdogg: 2)  Anyone who believes the Bible gives a literal account of creation is a moron

what evidence led you to believe it was being figurative? what was literally occurring btw?

I don't believe the people who wrote the Judeo-Christian creation myth were being figurative - I believe they were either trying to scam someone... or their kid was afraid of the dark and they were trying to get them to sleep - in other words, the same reasons people continue to propagate religion today.


I would say originally, a lot of the mythology stories were either attempts to answer questions about the nature of the universe that they had no ability to comprehend or simply superhero comics from a time before we learned how to print comics.

So it's equal parts the dad from Calvin and Hobbes answering one of Calvin's questions about why something is the way it is and Stan Lee writing a story about why his god can beat up your god.
 
2014-03-22 12:17:39 AM  
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov
 
2014-03-22 09:35:16 AM  

AngryDragon: Please clarify.


A. Creationism is the belief that the universe (and possibly living organisms) originate from specific acts of divine creation.

B. Young-Earth creationism fosters the belief that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology).

Even if all B are A, not all A are B.

/logic 101
 
2014-03-22 09:43:17 AM  

Dansker: Silly wars/sparkling repartee & witty banter. Tomahto/tomato.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

look dude if you're a mehtheist, it's fine, you can spend all day arguing terms with apatheists on whether or not paperclips are atheists, i'm just saying i'm not interested

if/when you guys can sufficiently agree on some basic terms, we are already waiting to converse with those types

i looked for Gilruiz1 's handy image macro but i couldn't find it, so you'll just have to use your imagination

in the mean time, i like bacon

you kids have fun
 
2014-03-22 09:53:49 AM  

Dansker: So, you didn't mean the kind of people I said?


"prove conclusively" are terms most people around here cannot handle properly, you gotta dumb it down for this audience, you don't want to summon abbey and IDW in the same thread.

so like i said, start with blue gargoyle (gnostic meaning more like ghastly's take on it) apply IDW's criteria, 51% surety = atheist vs. theist and gnostic vs. agnostic

and we can proceed with a simple conversation, and clearly indicate where we stand

clear as mud?

Dansker: People who claim certain knowledge beyond strong conviction on the question of divine existence are very rare (or very quiet), and generally not taken seriously.


which is why i asked

/and you're talking to one

Dansker: But it kinda depends on which god we're talking about, if any one specifically.


I believe in the One True God.

/so say we all

Dansker: You must have asked the question before. Has anyone ever said "Yes, I'm one of those!"?


it's been a while either most of them are gone (or banned) or i've forgotten who the others were, since i don't frequent these parts anymore

which is why i asked

/you make good point though
//usually is better not to ask...
 
2014-03-22 10:00:30 AM  

trippdogg: I don't believe the people who wrote the Judeo-Christian creation myth were being figurative - I believe they were either trying to scam someone... or their kid was afraid of the dark and they were trying to get them to sleep - in other words, the same reasons people continue to propagate religion today.


So then Jews and Christians are just a bunch of idiots who are part of the great hoax in history?  fascinating...

trippdogg: Currently, the model for the foundation of the known physical universe most consistent with observable data is what is commonly known as the Big Bang Theory.


and this conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible how?

Next.

Ghastly: I would say originally, a lot of the mythology stories were either attempts to answer questions about the nature of the universe that they had no ability to comprehend or simply superhero comics from a time before we learned how to print comics.

So it's equal parts the dad from Calvin and Hobbes answering one of Calvin's questions about why something is the way it is and Stan Lee writing a story about why his god can beat up your god.


ah, so then those greedy corrupt idiotic jews and christians weren't so much a part of the most elaborate hoax in history, but more like idiots leading idiots by using saturday morning cartoons as their "philosophy"?

fascinating...

btw is-was Jesus a Myth?
 
2014-03-22 10:04:53 AM  

Ghastly: It's really not complicated.


and yet here we are explaining it for the brazillionth time

maybe THIS time everyone will get it...?

*holding my breath*

I dare you... no i DOUBLE dog dare you to ask anyone what Nature is ...

/DO EET

i have a definition in my profile if anyone needz it, lelz
 
2014-03-22 10:13:59 AM  

Ghastly: Now if we had time I could go through the list, name each god and ask you "do you believe this god exists", but there are tens of thousands of them and by the time we got to Zeus people would be pretty sick of it. Being open to the possibility of whether or not a god exists is not the same as believing that god exists.


erm, don't you mean "brazillions"  liek literally...

webclasses.qrsd.org

and you had such a solid start, meh
 
2014-03-22 10:20:44 AM  

Ghastly: Dansker: Sorry, Ghastly, I honestly can't find any sources that describe Christianity in general as a "gnostic faith". It doesn't seem to be a common usage.

Pentecostals are a gnostic sect. They believe you can know for a fact that god exists because when you are born again the spirit of god enters you and reveals itself to you. They also believe that god will reveal himself to you through prayer and meditation. They KNOW god exists and they only reason other people aren't Pentecostals is because they have not known god yet and once they do, of course they will convert. I grew up Pentecostal and they are very much a gnostic faith. Other evangelical faiths are similar. They KNOW for a fact that god exists because they have experienced personal revelation of gods existence in their lives. To them it is just as much a fact as the sky being blue and water being wet.

But the problem with Blue Gargoyle's thing is that it says everybody is either "gnostic" or "agnostic". Some Christians are gnostic, but most are not, and neither are they agnostic; "God is unknowable"* is not common Christian dogma. In Abrahamic scripture, God is definitely knowable, when it wants to be, although seeing its face or pronouncing its name may cause problems.

So most Christians are neither gnostic, nor agnostic, and the same goes for atheists. When agnostic is defined as "asserting that gods are unknowable", being an agnostic atheist becomes an absurdity, because it doesn't make sense to ascribe qualities to something you don't think exists. It's like saying "I don't believe in Santa, and he lives in Greenland!"

-----------------------------------------------
*) Does "gods are unknowable" mean that it's impossible to know if they are real or that it's impossible to prove it, that it's impossible to fully comprehend the divine, or simply that they exist beyond human perception?
 
2014-03-22 10:33:24 AM  

Dansker: But the problem with Blue Gargoyle's thing is that it says everybody is either "gnostic" or "agnostic".


look dude, it is pretty simple

either you are 51% sure you have sufficient knowledge of a god's existence (whether or not you can "prove" it) or you do not

and you are already confusing ideas about whether or not God is "knowable" vs. one can know OF God

youaren'thelping.jpg

good luck ghastly let me know if you make any progress

Ghastly: If you believe in a god you are a theist.
If you are without believe in a god then you are an atheist.

It's really not complicated.

If you believe it is possible to know a god does or does not exist you are a gnostic.
If you believe it in not possible to know a god does or does not exist you are agnostic.


the only part i would add to the gnostic/agnostic bits are that the possibility of knowledge also includes the claims of having (or not having) that knowledge, so then merely just acknowledging the 'possibility' is a bit too vague

but understandable, given your audience

itz sad when we can't converse because our terms are governed by the audience's ability to comprehend... :(

meh
 
2014-03-22 10:44:03 AM  

I drunk what: Dansker: Silly wars/sparkling repartee & witty banter. Tomahto/tomato.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 253x199]

look dude if you're a mehtheist, it's fine, you can spend all day arguing terms with apatheists on whether or not paperclips are atheists, i'm just saying i'm not interested


I'm not sure what those tems mean, and you're the one who asked a question. I've tried to answer seriously a couple of times, but you seem to ignore that.

if/when you guys can sufficiently agree on some basic terms, we are already waiting to converse with those types

Is that the royal "We", or just you and the voices in your head?

and you are already confusing ideas about whether or not God is "knowable" vs. one can know OF God

Never mind God, what about gods? Is Shiva unknowable? Is Thor? What about Jupiter? Do greek demigods like Achilles and Dionysus count?
 
2014-03-22 10:59:53 AM  
Dansker:
So most Christians are neither gnostic, nor agnostic, and the same goes for atheists. When agnostic is defined as "asserting that gods are unknowable", being an agnostic atheist becomes an absurdity, because it doesn't make sense to ascribe qualities to something you don't think exists. It's like saying "I don't believe in Santa, and he lives in Greenland!"

Believing it is possible to know if something is knowable and knowing it are two different things. And you can still believe it is possible to know something but not know it yourself. I believe it is possible to know the 10^29th digit of π but I don't know it. I am gnostic when it comes to π .

Gnostics might not know for fact that god exists they just believe it is possible to know. You're praying to god for guidance and BOOM! you suddenly hear god's voice in your head clear as a bell telling you what you need to do (which co-incidentally enough always seems to be pretty much what you wanted to do in the first place). Clearly you can know god exists because god has just spoken to you directly.

You might be a Christian and believe it is possible for god to speak to you directly through revelation, but have not had it happen but have known people who have and believe them and thus even through you have not experienced revelation you believe it is possible and thus you can KNOW for a fact god exists.

Agnostic atheist makes perfect sense and most atheists are agnostic. They believe you cannot know with certainty  that god exists because god is by its nature something completely outside of our ability to perceive. In fact some go so far as to say that conceptually god is so far removed from our experience that we can not even come up with a cogent definition  of what god is. 200 foot tall bearded man in a robe appears in the sky and tells you he's god and performs miracles, well how can you know that's god? It could be just an advanced alien intelligent yanking our chain for galactic shirts and giggles. So it's simply "why can't know for a certainty whether or not got exists but I don't believe in a god" is the very definition of an agnostic atheist.

I fail to understand why people feel the need to take what are very simple concepts and over complicate them by kludging their layperson definitions onto them.
 
2014-03-22 11:55:49 AM  

Dansker: I'm not sure what those tems mean, and you're the one who asked a question. I've tried to answer seriously a couple of times, but you seem to ignore that.


i don't ignore things

however ghastly seems to be making more progress with you and he enjoys typing more than me so there's that

i'll just wait here patiently, as you've already indicated we've probably had this conversation before (brazillions of times)

Dansker: Is that the royal "We", or just you and the voices in your head?


whynotboth?.jpg

Dansker: Never mind God, what about gods? Is Shiva unknowable? Is Thor? What about Jupiter? Do greek demigods like Achilles and Dionysus count?


Everything is knowable in time.  All one needs is a brain and senses, then the possibilities are endless!

assuming one is using said brain-senses

Never mind a geodal shaped earth, what about a perfectly spherical shape?  Is the earth flat? Is shaped like a coin? or a doughnut? do theories about it being a cube count?

so many questions so many questions

so little time
 
2014-03-22 12:04:41 PM  

Ghastly: I fail to understand why people feel the need to take what are very simple concepts and over complicate them by kludging their layperson definitions onto them.


welcometofark.jpg

also i cannot help but notice that you aren't responding to IDW's posts...

may we ask why?

:)
 
2014-03-22 12:16:51 PM  
I drunk what:

btw is-was Jesus a Myth?

Biblical Jesus? Yes.

Was there a prophet called Yeshua Bin Yoseph who preached that god offers salvation to those who ask for it and that the greatest commandment is love god with all your heart and love your neighbour as your self and this Yeshua Bin Yoseph was executed for whatever reason? Probably. The middle east was lousy with self professed prophets at that time. It could be that an amalgamation of several of them coalesced into what we know know as the biblical Jesus but that biblical Jesus would still simply be a legend and myth.

Then there's the Jesus of Paul and Marcion of Sinope which are quite clearly mythical gods cobbled together from the assimilated believes and cultural fragments of other older gods.

So yeah, basically more retconned ancient superhero comics.
 
2014-03-22 12:18:41 PM  

Ghastly: I fail to understand why people feel the need to take what are very simple concepts and over complicate them by kludging their layperson definitions onto them.


They are clearly not simple concepts. As you say, to some "God" is undefinable and beyond human perception, what is simple about that?
Even the word "know" has a myriad of meanings and connotations depending on context and perspective, and phrasing the question itself will change the response. E.g. "Do you know in your heart that Jesus is real?" is not the same as "Do you know for a fact that Jesus is real?"

Who exactly isn't a layperson, when it comes to the existence and intricate, indescribable qualities of a possibly, hypotetically imperceptible and undefinable deity? Philosophy majors? Clerics? Fantasy Writers?
Anthropologists? Really?
Don't get me wrong, I like your comics, your sense of humour and your general commentary, but kindly go know yourself.
 
2014-03-22 12:18:52 PM  

I drunk what: Ghastly: I fail to understand why people feel the need to take what are very simple concepts and over complicate them by kludging their layperson definitions onto them.

welcometofark.jpg

also i cannot help but notice that you aren't responding to IDW's posts...

may we ask why?

:)


Aren't you IDW?
 
2014-03-22 12:32:37 PM  

I drunk what: Dansker: I'm not sure what those tems mean, and you're the one who asked a question. I've tried to answer seriously a couple of times, but you seem to ignore that.

i don't ignore things


Has any one ever replied "Yes, I'm one of those" to your question?

Dansker: Is that the royal "We", or just you and the voices in your head?

whynotboth?.jpg


We salute you, sirs.

Everything is knowable in time.  All one needs is a brain and senses, then the possibilities are endless!

What is eleventysex plus potato?
If you don't believe leprechauns are real, will he still give you his gold, when you catch one?
If a rainbow is really a bridge to Asgård, and leprechauns have pots of gold at the end of rainbows, does that mean leprechauns store their gold in Asgård? Makes sense, I guess, as long as you can trust the Asir... wait, did I hear Odin say something about tiling Valhalla completely in gold?
 
2014-03-22 12:34:38 PM  

Dansker: .

They are clearly not simple concepts. As you say, to some "God" is undefinable and beyond human perception, what is simple about that?


Defining god, yeah that's not simple because there is no consensus on what that means. To a Christian, they hold up the bible and say "this is the definition of god", to a Muslim it's in the Koran. But even amongst the believers there is still endless sectarian squabbling over the minutia of interpretation.

However some words have meaning.

Theist: believes in a god or gods; from the greek Theos meaning "god"
Atheist: without belief in god or gods; from the greek atheos meaning "without god".

Gnostic: believes it is possible to know that god or gods exist; from the greek gnosis meaning "knowledge".
Agnostic: believes it is not possible to know that god or gods exist; from the greek agnosis meaning "without knowledge".

Those are what those words mean. That is the basic syntax of religious studies. If you are going to carry on a discussion about religion then use the correct terminology. If you just want to get drunk, stare at your belly button and philosophize with your buddies in the pub then use whatever words you can manage to slur out of your pint hole.

It's like supercharger and turbocharger. They both pretty much do the same thing but are completely different machines. If you're having a discussion about cars with a room full of mechanics and you start telling them a turbocharger is the exact same thing as a supercharger you're going to look like an idiot. If you're down at the pub talking cars with your buddies and you keep calling a supercharger a turbocharger nobody is going to really give a shiat you're using the wrong words.

Now dismissing the definition of the words because "words can mean whatever you want them to mean if you believe that's what they mean" makes it pointless to even begin a discussion. You're falling into the trap of the arrow that points at everything points at nothing.
 
2014-03-22 12:40:43 PM  

Dansker: Yes, but not "know" in the sense of being able to prove, which is one reason Blue Gargoyle's definitions are too loose to hold up.
If IDW wants to see the hands of people who would say that they are personally entirely convinced one way or the other, he'll get a different count than if he asks for those who think they can prove it.
So I'm suggesting that to get a clear answer, it would be wiser to spend a few more words to say exactly what he means, than insist on using labels, whose meaning drifts over time and depending on context, and which, even in that illustration, are ambiguously defined.


i just noticed this, but i believe we already covered it here:

I drunk what: the only part i would add to the gnostic/agnostic bits are that the possibility of knowledge also includes the claims of having (or not having) that knowledge, so then merely just acknowledging the 'possibility' is a bit too vague


and of course this bit:

I drunk what: either you are 51% sure you have sufficient knowledge of a god's existence (whether or not you can "prove" it) or you do not

and you are already confusing ideas about whether or not God is "knowable" vs. one can know OF God


so then, we good?

and just to clarify, IDW wants to see the hands of those who are greater than or equal to 51% convinced there is (or is not) a god, presuming that we're at least talking to a crowd that already assumes that one CAN, at least, know OF god (whether or not you can "prove" it, and certainly not "know" in the scientific sense...)

maybe I can get a hand count right before the thread closes...?  *rolls eyes*

tl;dr

IDW doesn't want to interrupt the usual mehtheist vs. apatheist clusterfark, paperclips are ATHEISTZ LELZ ROFL, it' teh defawlt pozishun

i liek bacon
 
2014-03-22 12:49:25 PM  

Ghastly: Aren't you IDW?


Like Bob Dole, IDW loves to refer to himself in the third person...
 
2014-03-22 12:53:30 PM  

scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs


love u
 
2014-03-22 12:58:05 PM  

Dansker: Has any one ever replied "Yes, I'm one of those" to your question?


*ahem*

I drunk what: it's been a while, either most of them are gone (or banned) or i've forgotten who the others were, since i don't frequent these parts anymore


if i had to guess, i'd say RobSeace, Gilruiz1, Abb3w, ...? ???

i cannot recall

just curious

Ghastly: Aren't you IDW?


sometimes, who's asking? i vaguely remember you, and you're not labeled IB fwiw, actually after i took a sabbatical i've found it more efficient to label not-IB, which I'd say you qualify for.. congrats

Dansker: What is eleventysex plus potato?


two

Dansker: If you don't believe leprechauns are real, will he still give you his gold, when you catch one?


perhaps, in your dreams

on a side note, if you jump out of an airplane and you simply tell Gravity that you don't believe it exists, will you arrive safely on earth?

Dansker: If a rainbow is really a bridge to Asgård, and leprechauns have pots of gold at the end of rainbows, does that mean leprechauns store their gold in Asgård?


do you have any records kept by a leprechaun that can verify any of these things?  or at least some irish goat herder who kept accounts of his dealing with said leprechaun...?  (for starters)

[citation needed]

Dansker: Makes sense, I guess, as long as you can trust the Asir... wait, did I hear Odin say something about tiling Valhalla completely in gold?


*turns ear towards sky*

1. how would i know what you heard? 2. what does Odin sound like?
 
2014-03-22 01:02:30 PM  

RobSeace: Ghastly: Aren't you IDW?

Like Bob Dole, IDW loves to refer to himself in the third person...


IDW does not think thats funny!

IDW will not be mocked!!!1!

*spoken in a Norm MacDonald doing Bob Dole voice*
 
2014-03-22 01:04:03 PM  
Proof has nothing to do with gnosis. Gnostic Christians believe that gnosis comes directly through personal revelation. God himself personally enters you and makes his presence known thus you know for 100% fact that god exists. This is not something you can prove though because to gnostic Christians the only way god can be known is through personal, direct revelation. You can't prove it with math.

Gnosis itself is not necessary to being gnostic in your beliefs. There are gnostic Christians who believe 100% percent the reality of the revelation that other gnostic Christians have had even though they themselves have not experienced this revelation. They believe their revelation experience will happen exactly when it is part of god's plan for this revelation to happen. They are 100% convinced that personal revelation is a fact. This is exactly what the religion I grew up in was like. The Pentecostal faith is a gnostic religion.

Proof is not necessary for gnosis. For example, let's say some fantastical alien creatures came to earth and obliterated everything about George Takei and abducted him and took off. Every physical record of his existence is gone, no evidence he was ever on this planet exists, there is nothing but anecdotal evidence he was ever here and thus it is impossible to prove he existed.

I would know George Takei existed. I had a personal experience with George Takei. We sat together in a greenroom at a convention, at the same table, and had breakfast together. We talked about coffee, and beer, and Japanese culture and language, and chocolate and about tonnes of things that weren't Star Trek because I knew the moment I opened my mouth about Star Trek I'd go full on geek fanboi and ruin the moment. I would be gnostic in my belief in George Takei even though I could not prove that George Takei existed. Future generations might think I was a mad man for believing in George Takei when there is clearly no proof he exists but I would KNOW that George Takei was real and a very charming breakfast companion. I WOULD KNOW!

Now you can also be gnostic without having gnosis but being able to prove your belief. Given the example I gave earlier about π. I believe you can know the 10^26 digit of π but I don't know it. I am still gnostic in that belief and if I was so motivated I could do the math and find out what that digit is thus proving it. It's a pretty farking mundane thing to be gnostic about but it makes for a good example.
 
2014-03-22 01:16:38 PM  

I drunk what: Dansker: Has any one ever replied "Yes, I'm one of those" to your question?

*ahem*

I drunk what: it's been a while, either most of them are gone (or banned) or i've forgotten who the others were, since i don't frequent these parts anymore

if i had to guess, i'd say RobSeace, Gilruiz1, Abb3w, ...? ???


I'm one of what now? If I'm following the thread correctly, it was about someone claiming to be gnostic? That's definitely not me... I'm an agnostic atheist...
 
2014-03-22 01:22:22 PM  

Ghastly: However some words have meaning.

Theist: believes in a god or gods; from the greek Theos meaning "god"
Atheist: without belief in god or gods; from the greek atheos meaning "without god".

Gnostic: believes it is possible to know that god or gods exist; from the greek gnosis meaning "knowledge".
Agnostic: believes it is not possible to know that god or gods exist; from the greek agnosis meaning "without knowledge".

Those are what those words mean. That is the basic syntax of religious studies. If you are going to carry on a discussion about religion then use the correct terminology. If you just want to get drunk, stare at your belly button and philosophize with your buddies in the pub then use whatever words you can manage to slur out of your pint hole.

It's like supercharger and turbocharger. They both pretty much do the same thing but are completely different machines. If you're having a discussion about cars with a room full of mechanics and you start telling them a turbocharger is the exact same thing as a supercharger you're going to look like an idiot. If you're down at the pub talking cars with your buddies and you keep calling a supercharger a turbocharger nobody is going to really give a shiat you're using the wrong words.

Now dismissing the definition of the words because "words can mean whatever you want them to mean if you believe that's what they mean" makes it pointless to even begin a discussion. You're falling into the trap of the arrow that points at everything points at nothing.


well said, and yet:

Ghastly: 1.  Defining god, yeah that's not simple because there is no consensus on what that means. 2.To a Christian, they hold up the bible and say "this is the definition of god", to a Muslim it's in the Koran. But even amongst the believers there is still endless sectarian squabbling over the minutia of interpretation.

no cigar

it seems you are good at some stuff and not so good at other stuff...

1. you don't need to have a consensus in order to discuss something 2. Christians/Muslims believe God is a book? 3.  Just because people are unable to agree on what message(s) are conveyed within texts, therefore people cannot agree on who-what God is?

Is not the God of the Bible and the God of the Quran (and the "Jewish God" btw) not essentially the same being...?  Not to be confused with each religions preferred spokesperson-representative-prophet (i.e. Jesus vs. Muhammed)

not 3 gods, but One

3 Interpretations of God perhaps, but NOT 3 gods

now contrast that to Roman-Greek mythology (<-- actual correct usage of that word btw)

Are God and Zeus two different gods? Yes.

are aphrodite and venus two different gods? No.  The same but at best, two different "interpretations".

i haz a sad that i have to explain this stuff to you, seeing how you are not-IB...

*waits patiently*
 
2014-03-22 01:24:02 PM  

Ghastly: grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.


I actively neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of aliens.
 
2014-03-22 01:25:35 PM  

RobSeace: I'm one of what now? If I'm following the thread correctly, it was about someone claiming to be gnostic? That's definitely not me... I'm an agnostic atheist...


dangit it seems like i get that wrong every single time, are you sure you're using the terms we agreed on?

honestly i don't remember, and don't bother pretending to keep up anymore..

i coulda swore you told me at some point that you were more than 51% sure about that...? watevs
 
2014-03-22 01:29:05 PM  
And if we're going to start throwing throwing around proof as it pertains to knowledge then the terminology you are looking for is apodeictic which means provable.

So you can say "I am an apodeictic gnostic theist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god exists, I believe in god, and I can prove god exists.

You can also say "I am a nonapodeictic gnostic theist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god exists, I believe in god, but I can't prove that god exists.

You can say "I am an apodeictic gnostic atheist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god does not exist, I do not believe in god, and I can prove that god does not exist.

You can say "I am a nonapodeictic gnostic atheist" which means I believe you can know god exists, I don't believe in a god, but I can't prove god does not exist.

You could also say "I am an apodeictic agnostic atheist" which would mean I don't know if god does or does exist, I don't believe in a god, I believe in the theoreticial possibility that proof of gods existence could be produced.

You could say "I am a nonapodeictic agnostic atheist" which means I don't know if god does or does not exist, I don't believe in a god, I don't believe it is possible to prove god does or does not exist.

You can say "I am an apodeictic agnostic theist" which means I don't know if god exists, I believe in a god, I believe in the theoretical possibility that proof of god is possible.

Or you can say "I am a Capital-Letter-A Agnostic" which means, I am a contrarian who finds gnostic atheists and theists annoying and does not want to acknowledge the existence of agnostic theists and atheists but I really really really want to feel like I'm superior to everyone else.

The key to being understood is to use language effectively, not to dilute the words we have to mean whatever the hell you want them to mean at the moment.
You can say "I am a nonapodeictic agnostic theist" which means I don't know if god exists, I believe in a god, I don't believe it is possible to prove god exists.
 
2014-03-22 01:32:49 PM  

Egoy3k: grumpfuff: So you just go straight to ad hominems? Nice.

Anyway, my Philosophy degree is from Rutgers. Comparing one of the top philosophy programs in the world to See Spot Run is kind of silly.

Maybe you should write one of your English professors from Rutgers and ask him or her to explain the use of 'a' as a prefix in the English language then.


I have no beliefs concerning (random native tribe in the world). By your definitions, that's the same as saying I don't believe they exist.
 
2014-03-22 01:34:50 PM  

grumpfuff: Ghastly: grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.

I actively neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of aliens.


So in other words "I lack the cognitive ability to conceptualize abstract dialectics"

How do you actively not believe something? What actions need to be taken to not believe something?
How do you simultaneously and actively not not believe something? What actions need to be taken to ensure that while you not not believe something at the same time that you perform the actions needed to bot believe something?
 
2014-03-22 01:37:16 PM  

Ghastly: Biblical Jesus? Yes.


o noes IB-like typing detected

Ghastly: Was there a prophet called Yeshua Bin Yoseph who preached that god offers salvation to those who ask for it and that the greatest commandment is love god with all your heart and love your neighbour as your self and this Yeshua Bin Yoseph was executed for whatever reason? Probably.


hmm, not sure if this is considered a reasonable "save" or not... meh

and where do you obtain knowledge about this Yeshua lad? hmmm?

*cue cognitive dissonance*

may i suggest some IB quality cherry picking...?

btw are-were you a jew? just curious

Ghastly: The middle east was lousy with self professed prophets at that time. It could be that an amalgamation of several of them coalesced into what we know know as the biblical Jesus but that biblical Jesus would still simply be a legend and myth.


greatest hoax EVA

Ghastly: Then there's the Jesus of Paul and Marcion of Sinope which are quite clearly mythical gods cobbled together from the assimilated believes and cultural fragments of other older gods.

So yeah, basically more retconned ancient superhero comics.


greatest conspiracy (with a comic book plot twist) OF ALL TIME

...

0.0

thanks for saving me a bunch of typing

just for the record, though i really really wanted to farky you not-IB, i'm going to have to go with

Historical Jesus = Myth, (aka IB for short) "

sorry i wasted your time, good luck
 
2014-03-22 01:45:48 PM  

Ghastly: And if we're going to start throwing throwing around proof as it pertains to knowledge then the terminology you are looking for is apodeictic which means provable.

So you can say "I am an apodeictic gnostic theist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god exists, I believe in god, and I can prove god exists.

You can also say "I am a nonapodeictic gnostic theist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god exists, I believe in god, but I can't prove that god exists.

You can say "I am an apodeictic gnostic atheist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god does not exist, I do not believe in god, and I can prove that god does not exist.

You can say "I am a nonapodeictic gnostic atheist" which means I believe you can know god exists, I don't believe in a god, but I can't prove god does not exist.

You could also say "I am an apodeictic agnostic atheist" which would mean I don't know if god does or does exist, I don't believe in a god, I believe in the theoreticial possibility that proof of gods existence could be produced.

You could say "I am a nonapodeictic agnostic atheist" which means I don't know if god does or does not exist, I don't believe in a god, I don't believe it is possible to prove god does or does not exist.

You can say "I am an apodeictic agnostic theist" which means I don't know if god exists, I believe in a god, I believe in the theoretical possibility that proof of god is possible.

Or you can say "I am a Capital-Letter-A Agnostic" which means, I am a contrarian who finds gnostic atheists and theists annoying and does not want to acknowledge the existence of agnostic theists and atheists but I really really really want to feel like I'm superior to everyone else.

The key to being understood is to use language effectively, not to dilute the words we have to mean whatever the hell you want them to mean at the moment.
You can say "I am a nonapodeictic agnostic theist" which means I don't know if god exists, I bel ...


while i do not object to any of this, it is quite possible that this isn't helping

once again, as a friendly reminder, consider your audience (before you speak)

markelt.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-22 01:53:21 PM  

I drunk what: it seems you are good at some stuff and not so good at other stuff...

1. you don't need to have a consensus in order to discuss something 2. Christians/Muslims believe God is a book? 3. Just because people are unable to agree on what message(s) are conveyed within texts, therefore people cannot agree on who-what God is?

Is not the God of the Bible and the God of the Quran (and the "Jewish God" btw) not essentially the same being...? Not to be confused with each religions preferred spokesperson-representative-prophet (i.e. Jesus vs. Muhammed)

not 3 gods, but One

3 Interpretations of God perhaps, but NOT 3 gods

now contrast that to Roman-Greek mythology (<-- actual correct usage of that word btw)

Are God and Zeus two different gods? Yes.

are aphrodite and venus two different gods? No. The same but at best, two different "interpretations".

i haz a sad that i have to explain this stuff to you, seeing how you are not-IB...

*waits patiently*


What I'm saying is each religion and each sect of each religion has their own definition for what god or gods are.

To the Aryans Dyaus Pater (which literally translates as Sky Father, and become Zues for the Greeks and Zu Pater (Jupiter) to the Romans) was the king of all gods. The biggest of the big. The most powerful of the powerful. The god the gods worshipped.  That was their definition of god.

Jews, Christians, Muslims they all have their definitions of god and which have as many differences as they have similarities. The roots of their religions have common ancestry and even extend back to the proto Aryan religions. But they've got their own dogmatic definitions of what God is.

But those are all mythological gods. You can trace their stories and legends through time and see how one god evolved to become another and how bits of this god and bits of that god combined to create this god.

Now delete the mythology and what are you left with? What is god then? Get rid of the legends, and stories, and morality plays and what is god?

When it comes to religion there's simply no way I can believe in any of them. I've studied them and I see how religions are born, evolve, and even die. They're all just stories.

Strip away religion though and you're left with the big question what is god?

Is god simply the most powerful of all beings? The biggest kid on the block? The alien that can beat up any other alien?

Is god simply the collective consciousness of the universe made aware of itself?

Is god something that sits completely outside the universe, apart from it but in control of it?

Is god something that sits completely outside the universe, apart from it and unaware of it?

These are the questions that transcend mere man made myths.

I have no definitive answers for them. I can think of no way to prove any hypothesis I might be able to come up with to answer them. Since I have no proof of a god and frankly the universe would seem to run just as well if a god doesn't exist I am an atheist. I am a nonapodeictic agnostic atheist. That could change some day, but it would require some pretty impressive evidence or profound psychosis to change.
 
2014-03-22 02:00:10 PM  

grumpfuff: Ghastly: grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.

I actively neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of aliens.


Awesome, but what we REALLY want to know is ...

Are you or are you not in fact, a paperclip?

itz teh defawlt pozishun!!1!! LELZ

~Fin

/thread
//site

i'm out
 
2014-03-22 02:01:37 PM  

I drunk what: RobSeace: I'm one of what now? If I'm following the thread correctly, it was about someone claiming to be gnostic? That's definitely not me... I'm an agnostic atheist...

dangit it seems like i get that wrong every single time, are you sure you're using the terms we agreed on?

honestly i don't remember, and don't bother pretending to keep up anymore..

i coulda swore you told me at some point that you were more than 51% sure about that...? watevs


Oh, yeah, I forgot you are (mis)using terms that way...

It's really kind of silly to talk in terms of percentage sure at all, anyway... I mean, how does one measure such a thing? I think I probably said I was around 99% "sure" there are no gods... But, what does really mean? It's basically just a number pulled straight out of my ass! I'm just saying that all evidence (or lack thereof) seen so far leads me to feel fairly confident in my position... But, and this is the key part: I'm not closing my mind off to the possibility that I'm wrong... If things change, and I see evidence to convince me otherwise, I'll change my belief... It's just that for right now, I'm going to continue on with my life with the assumption that deities do not exist, because that has served me pretty well so far, and I've yet to be proven wrong...

To me, a gnostic atheist would be one who is absolutely certain in their belief, and wouldn't even consider evidence to the contrary... Ie: they're 100% sure on your scale... I'm not sure such people even exist, but maybe... I know gnostic theists exist, certainly...
 
2014-03-22 02:17:03 PM  

Ghastly: When it comes to religion there's simply no way I can believe in any of them.


the key to religion is being able to filter out the mythology, and find the history

being extra careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater

good luck

Ghastly: Strip away religion though and you're left with the big question what is Nature  god?


Naturedidit (physically speaking)  b-b-b-but Nature == Physical so then i repeated myself?! lulz

/FOR SCIENCE!1!!!!

Ghastly: Is god simply the most powerful of all beings? The biggest kid on the block? The alien that can beat up any other alien?

Is god simply the collective consciousness of the universe made aware of itself?

Is god something that sits completely outside the universe, apart from it but in control of it?

Is god something that sits completely outside the universe, apart from it and unaware of it?


Is god a burrito that was nuked so hot that the alien couldn't eated it?

*mind blown*

Ghastly: These are the questions that transcend mere man made myths.


oh well, it's just too bad that we have no historical evidence to ponder, to find the answers to such questions, since everything written down before today (and does not have an accompanying youtube video) didn't happen... and is a myth

*whatcha gunna do?! stupid look on face*

as for any claims about religious topics:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

and don't listen to any of those crazy religious people and their sneaky sneaky hoax conspiracies

cuz us enlightened folks gotta stick together

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

www.godlessgirl.com
 
2014-03-22 02:21:03 PM  

RobSeace: I drunk what: RobSeace: I'm one of what now? If I'm following the thread correctly, it was about someone claiming to be gnostic? That's definitely not me... I'm an agnostic atheist...

dangit it seems like i get that wrong every single time, are you sure you're using the terms we agreed on?

honestly i don't remember, and don't bother pretending to keep up anymore..

i coulda swore you told me at some point that you were more than 51% sure about that...? watevs

Oh, yeah, I forgot you are (mis)using terms that way...

It's really kind of silly to talk in terms of percentage sure at all, anyway... I mean, how does one measure such a thing? I think I probably said I was around 99% "sure" there are no gods... But, what does really mean? It's basically just a number pulled straight out of my ass! I'm just saying that all evidence (or lack thereof) seen so far leads me to feel fairly confident in my position... But, and this is the key part: I'm not closing my mind off to the possibility that I'm wrong... If things change, and I see evidence to convince me otherwise, I'll change my belief... It's just that for right now, I'm going to continue on with my life with the assumption that deities do not exist, because that has served me pretty well so far, and I've yet to be proven wrong...

To me, a gnostic atheist would be one who is absolutely certain in their belief, and wouldn't even consider evidence to the contrary... Ie: they're 100% sure on your scale... I'm not sure such people even exist, but maybe... I know gnostic theists exist, certainly...


1-media-cdn.foolz.us

dude, 1. read the thread 2. may ghastly have mercy on your soul

i liek bacon
 
2014-03-22 02:22:31 PM  

Ghastly: grumpfuff: Ghastly: grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.

I actively neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of aliens.

So in other words "I lack the cognitive ability to conceptualize abstract dialectics"

How do you actively not believe something? What actions need to be taken to not believe something?
How do you simultaneously and actively not not believe something? What actions need to be taken to ensure that while you not not believe something at the same time that you perform the actions needed to bot believe something?


No, in other words I accept the validity of the answer "I don't know."
 
2014-03-22 02:25:55 PM  

Ghastly: Aren't you IDW?


Nope, i'm Dizz.

you should click my profile, IDW doesn't live here no more
 
2014-03-22 02:26:16 PM  
I drunk what:
o noes IB-like typing detected

I know you're trying to be "I'm all kawaii motherfarker" but I seriously don't know who or what this IB you are talking about is.

and where do you obtain knowledge about this Yeshua lad? hmmm?

Because Yeshua and Yoseph were common as all fark names back then. It would be like saying Dave, son of John. There are probably a few hundred people in my city named Dave who had a dad named John. Street corner prophets were a dime a dozen back then as well. So it is completely not beyond the realm of the possible that there was a street corner prophet named Yeshua bin Yoseph and that he had a following, got executed, and his followers created a death cult based around him.

*cue cognitive dissonance*

I fail to see what two opposing beliefs I am holding as true at the same time. I think you are making assumptions.


btw are-were you a jew? just curious

No, I was a Pentecostal when I was young. I am now an atheist. As stated earlier in the thread I majored in Anthropology with a minor in Religious Studies. The two studies were complimentary since religion plays a very important part in culture and to understand a culture it is important to understand its myths and legends and beliefs.


greatest hoax EVA

I wouldn't go so far as to say Christianity was a hoax, that would imply malice. I believe it evolved out of the stories people told to try to answer questions they couldn't otherwise answer, just like every other religion.


greatest conspiracy (with a comic book plot twist) OF ALL TIME

Once again, conspiracy implies malice. I don't think early Christianity was born out of malice. It was just people trying to make sense of the world. The example I gave of Marcion of Sinope (who has a cool name because it's pronounced the same as the little green men). He the leader of an early gnostic Christian sect. His Christ  was an attempt to reconcile the psycopathic JHWH of the Old Testament with the all loving and merciful god of the New Testament. It confused him that the two could possibly be the same god. So through revelation he came to see that the Creator God of the old Testament was the cruel and insane god Yaltabaoth. Jesus was not the Jewish messiah but an emissary from Moned, the benevolent God of all gods. Jesus was sent to teach the truth about creation and to offer salvation from the torture of the cruel creator god Yaltabaoth.

This is straight up applied mythology. You can trace the heritage of its thought you can see what older mythologies left their fingerprints on it.

This is the same with every religion why have on earth, and to the believers every other religion with the exception of their religion is mythology and theirs is true. They see this because they're looking at it from inside the bubble. If they were outside the bubble they'd see their religion the way other people outside the religion see it. Made up stories and legends that have their roots in older made up stories and legends.

 "  Historical Jesus = Myth, (aka IB for short) "


Technically legend might be more accurate a term. Christianity as a religion is mythology, it's just mythology that people inside its bubble still believe is true, same as it was for every other religion before it that mankind eventually stopped believing in.

1000 years from now people might think of Jesus in the same way we think of Dyaus Pater now, but be fighting wars over whether or not you accept that Boba Fett died for your sins.
 
2014-03-22 02:31:27 PM  

Ghastly: Once again, conspiracy implies malice.


Ghastly: I wouldn't go so far as to say Christianity was a hoax, that would imply malice.


how politically correct  kind of you, thank you

Ghastly:1000 years from now people might think of Jesus in the same way we think of Dyaus Pater now, but be fighting wars over whether or not you accept that Boba Fett died for your sins.

good luck dude, and may the force be with you
 
2014-03-22 02:32:39 PM  
grumpfuff:

No, in other words I accept the validity of the answer "I don't know."

Who doesn't?

I don't know that leprechauns exist. I don't. I can't prove they exist either.
I don't believe in leprechauns.

It requires no action on my part to not believe in leprechauns. There are no rituals or words that need to be said to not believe in leprechauns. To do actively do something by its very definition requires an act. I require no act to not do something.
 
2014-03-22 02:47:27 PM  

Ghastly: It requires no action on my part to not believe in leprechauns. There are no rituals or words that need to be said to not believe in leprechauns. To do actively do something by its very definition requires an act. I require no act to not do something.


img.fark.net

What we say to paperclips
 
2014-03-22 03:22:27 PM  
Today I learned that my handle is actually a thing.
 
2014-03-22 03:26:01 PM  

Apatheist: Today I learned that my handle is actually a thing.


It is. Basically boils down to, don't know, don't care, not even important enough to consider.
 
2014-03-22 06:29:18 PM  
Yeah, "god is unknowable" is clearly a simple, straightforward concept. Good thing I stopped kludging that up.
 
2014-03-22 06:56:21 PM  

Dansker: Yeah, "god is unknowable" is clearly a simple, straightforward concept. Good thing I stopped kludging that up.


What about it do you find confusing?
 
2014-03-22 07:08:06 PM  

Ghastly: Apatheist: Today I learned that my handle is actually a thing.

It is. Basically boils down to, don't know, don't care, not even important enough to consider.


vs. mehtheist

sorta know, sorta seems important, don't care enough to.. meh

Dansker: Yeah, "god is unknowable" is clearly a simple, straightforward concept. Good thing I stopped kludging that up.


even gnostic theists understand that God is unknowable

let it go lad, move on
 
2014-03-22 07:13:32 PM  

Ghastly: Dansker: Yeah, "god is unknowable" is clearly a simple, straightforward concept. Good thing I stopped kludging that up.

What about it do you find confusing?


What I find complex and contributing to lack of clarity, is that, as you pointed out upthread, "god" is not defined, and depends on who you talk to, and that "unknowable" can both mean "incomprehensible", "imperceptible" and "undetectable", among other things. It is also a possible synonym for "nonexistent". Also, the fact that it is possible to be agnostic about one definition of "god" and not about another makes it less than straightforward.
 
2014-03-22 07:15:56 PM  

I drunk what:
even gnostic theists understand that God is unknowable


Clear as muck, that.
 
2014-03-22 07:23:11 PM  
I used to drag a unicorn around with me everywhere, just in case I saw a virgin. Now I suspect they're not even real.
 
Displayed 350 of 350 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report