Subscribe | 
Back to News & Politics Posted: Sun 28th Dec 2008, 11:27 pmPauly (>'.')> wrote:
No, it's about 90% certain. We might not have been around for the murder of the maid, but we can pretty much say Colonel Mustard did it because all the evidence points towards it being him. You should really read some astronomy stuff, it's really quite fascinating and doesn't require any belief in anything that defies the cosmological constants or fundamental forces, just plain old reality.
meh science and theorys change all the time
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed [and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
By H.L. Mencken
Posted: Mon 29th Dec 2008, 11:41 amCUNiT wrote:
meh science and theorys change all the time
Yes, they are self-correcting based on evidence acquired. A polar opposite to unflinching belief in the absence of evidence. If science found proof of a universal creator (say, for arguements sake a generalised one rather than any specific God like Yahweh or Amon Ra) it would be a defining moment in the history of our species and no rational person would be ignorant enough to dismiss concrete evidence. Hasn't happened, quite the opposite in fact. The simple reality is all the knowledge acquired to date points to an awesome, elegant solution that requires nothing but the universal constants, forces and a lot of time for it all to happen. Once you understand it (and no special divine knowledge is required, just a bit of reading) it's pretty cool and far more grand and humbling than some cosmic space fairy who demands your worship.
Quote:
Ulver... was taken to the Forward Docks and a big, brightly lit hangar, where the Psychopath Class ex-Rapid Offensive Unit Frank Exchange of Views was waiting for her.
Ulver laughed. 'It looks,' she snorted, 'like a dildo!'
'That's appropriate,' Chyrt Lyne said. 'Armed, it can fuck solar systems.'
Posted: Mon 29th Dec 2008, 2:00 pm Posted: Mon 29th Dec 2008, 4:15 pmPauly (>'.')> wrote:
Yes, they are self-correcting based on evidence acquired. A polar opposite to unflinching belief in the absence of evidence. If science found proof of a universal creator (say, for arguements sake a generalised one rather than any specific God like Yahweh or Amon Ra) it would be a defining moment in the history of our species and no rational person would be ignorant enough to dismiss concrete evidence. Hasn't happened, quite the opposite in fact. The simple reality is all the knowledge acquired to date points to an awesome, elegant solution that requires nothing but the universal constants, forces and a lot of time for it all to happen. Once you understand it (and no special divine knowledge is required, just a bit of reading) it's pretty cool and far more grand and humbling than some cosmic space fairy who demands your worship.
true only concrete evidence is what you see with your own eye though
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed [and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
By H.L. Mencken
Posted: Mon 29th Dec 2008, 8:53 pmTheycallmejung wrote:
But there are very prominent scientists who do believe in God. Stephen Hawking probably being the most famous. Are we to believe he just doesn't understand the subject which he has contributed so much? And people like Richard Dawkins come across as if they were sexually abused by priests when they were kids. I've never really heard a conclusive argument on any side. There's always gaps that both sides would rather you didn't pay any notice to. I really don't know enough to come to my own conclusion as I suspect is the same with most people. I don't think you're gonna get rid of religion any time soon and it's more likely to evolve with science rather than be abandoned because of it, so I think we should concentrate on social interaction, and getting better at respecting eachother...
Hawking only believes in Spinoza's God - "I use 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did." And Einstein used 'God' as a metaphor for the nature of the universe, denying a personal God and saying "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Basically it's pantheism, which is sexed up agnosticism.
He doesn't believe in an afterlife or hocus pocus supernatural stuff.
Quote:
Ulver... was taken to the Forward Docks and a big, brightly lit hangar, where the Psychopath Class ex-Rapid Offensive Unit Frank Exchange of Views was waiting for her.
Ulver laughed. 'It looks,' she snorted, 'like a dildo!'
'That's appropriate,' Chyrt Lyne said. 'Armed, it can fuck solar systems.'
Posted: Mon 29th Dec 2008, 8:58 pmCUNiT wrote:
true only concrete evidence is what you see with your own eye though
That kind of cancels God out then, BOOYAH!
Also you're thinking too simply. The visible spectrum of light we see is only a small slice of it, we need electron microscopes to see down to the atomic level, we need to stick a huge telescope up in space to view light from galaxies billions of years old.
Quote:
Ulver... was taken to the Forward Docks and a big, brightly lit hangar, where the Psychopath Class ex-Rapid Offensive Unit Frank Exchange of Views was waiting for her.
Ulver laughed. 'It looks,' she snorted, 'like a dildo!'
'That's appropriate,' Chyrt Lyne said. 'Armed, it can fuck solar systems.'
