Ed on religion

U R A Crazy Breed

catefrances wrote:

please be my guest argue all you like. most wars are based on greed.
atheists can be a bit delusion at times. they so hate religion that it clouds their judgement.

you are exactly right!! (in the inner circle) war is always about money and power and the idiots are manipulated by all the other shit which is just a front for the truth.

South of Seattle

Thank God I'm Agnostic.

There are so many jacked up thoughts in this thread.

I don't believe in a God Figure. I think I'm nice, fairly open minded, don't berate others, open doors for old ladies. I don't think I'm lost in my ways, I probably act more religious than people who are followers of religion. Like it was said earlier in this thread. Take away religion and there is good and there is evil. I think most likely when the whole concept of heaven and hell was created it really meant good=heaven, bad=hell. Organized religion complicates things and creates this war between believers and non-believers.

Thread integrity: Yeah Ed is hypocritical, and most Pearl Jam fans at the shows I'd never hang out with ever in real life. Although the good PJ fans I've met are friends for life. If you're the kind of person who screams during the Symphony, you probably shouldn't see Ed solo

catefrances

Crazy Breed wrote:

you are exactly right!! (in the inner circle) war is always about money and power and the idiots are manipulated by all the other shit which is just a front for the truth.

so... you're agreeing with me now?

ajedigecko

South of Seattle wrote:

Thank God I'm Agnostic.

There are so many jacked up thoughts in this thread.

I don't believe in a God Figure. I think I'm nice, fairly open minded, don't berate others, open doors for old ladies. I don't think I'm lost in my ways, I probably act more religious than people who are followers of religion. Like it was said earlier in this thread. Take away religion and there is good and there is evil. I think most likely when the whole concept of heaven and hell was created it really meant good=heaven, bad=hell. Organized religion complicates things and creates this war between believers and non-believers.

Thread integrity: Yeah Ed is hypocritical, and most Pearl Jam fans at the shows I'd never hang out with ever in real life. Although the good PJ fans I've met are friends for life. If you're the kind of person who screams during the Symphony, you probably shouldn't see Ed solo

i like your comment on pj fans and hanging out with them.

at the few shows i go to i take the time to introduce myself, when the situation presents itself, as my birth name and screen name. the interesting thing is....few reciprocate. so i suppose some on here like having the computer personality and their life personality kept seperate, for whatever reason.

ClimberInOz

Big Man wrote:

if you knew what you talk about, you would not say stuff like attacking the idea of the big bang is ridiculous. even among scientists the big bang is being discussed. For example the question on how matter started to move, so the chain reaction could be initiated. Scientists have no clue. They speculate, of course, but They know what it's worth. The data is very limitited, astronomy is very very limited. We almost know nothing about the universe .
Big Bang theory doesnt explain life or the mind, anyway. And no real scientist ever wanted or tried to explain the big questions, cuz there are just no answers.: why is something there and not nothing. How came life into existancee. Why do humans wonder about stuff. what is the soul. what is the meaning of life. Most nobel prize winners were believers, so nobody tell me that reason is on the atheist side.

As to your question. I dont think 'science is wrong'. But it is so successfull, that people believe it can answer anything some day. Its not gonna happen. Reality is not that easy. It is absurd and paradox. maybe 'knowledge is a dream'.

Funny... I didn't remember asking a question.

I also did not say that attacking the big bang theory is ridiculous- I actually said that if you call the theory ridiculous without understanding the theory, or the evidence that supports it, then you are just giving an uneducated opinion. Unless you can think of another name for expresing something's worth without actually understanding it?

And on that topic of understanding it, let's clear up a few of your misconceptions:

The big bang does not attempt to explain how spacetime, or the matter contained within it began expanding. Instead the theory explains occurences after the planck epoch, by which stage the expansion had already occured. So please don't attack a theory for not explaining something that it is not meant to explain.

And do you expect myself, or any other like minded person to be surprised that the theory is still being discussed? I am sure that even the president of the big bang fan club would be willing to admit that the theory is far from perfect. Nobody claims that, so of course it is still being discussed.

A scientific theory or model is only as good as its ability to explain observations. The big bang theory originated from Edwin Hubble's observations that light from galaxies is red shifted, and thus the objects are moving away from us. And that the further away an object is, the faster it is moving. This is exactly what happens in an explosion- the outer objects move faster than the inner objects.

And the big bang theory made predictions, which allowed scientists to test how accurate a picture of the universe it presented. Specifically, it predicted ratios of different types of helium, lithium and deuterium to hydrogen. The relative abundances of these elemets agree with the predictions of the theory.

The big bang also predicted 'background radiation' of a specific temperature coming from all parts of the sky. Not only has this radiation been detected, and not only was the temperature of the radiation almost exactly what the theory predicted, and not only have the density fluctuations been detected that were also predicted, but you can watch it when you turn on your tv (approx. 25% of static on tv is background radiation from the big bang).

So please don't say that, 'The data is very limitited, astronomy is very very limited. We almost know nothing about the universe'. Be critical of the theory by all means, but don't do that and in the same paragraph demonstrate that you actually don't understand the very thing you are denouncing.

Believe what you want- just don't butcher the science.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Big Man wrote:

I dont understand your first question. Dont think all Christians are stupid. I was talking about abstract terms. Gravity is a fact like the apple false down, so...

I really like your second part, though! This is a great thought, and could be made into a movie, a atheist movie, of course. About the boredom when all questions are answered. An apocalyptic sci fi movie, were people become animals again maybe, out of boredom, or... I dont know. Or like you said, they would evolve then. Great idea.

the Christian point on this goes like this: Here, there is no absolute knowledge. We get that after we died and will watch the truth, as it is. when we are with God, no questions will be unanswered. We will watch the truth.

Okay, if we go with the Christian point of no absolute knowledge... can you concede that science allows us to understand our world to a greater extent than would be possible if we stopped questioning things? That maybe part of whatever plan your creator had for us included bettering ourselves with our thirst for knowledge?:)

Heineken Helen

ClimberInOz wrote:

Funny... I didn't remember asking a question.

I also did not say that attacking the big bang theory is ridiculous- I actually said that if you call the theory ridiculous without understanding the theory, or the evidence that supports it, then you are just giving an uneducated opinion. Unless you can think of another name for expresing something's worth without actually understanding it?

And on that topic of understanding it, let's clear up a few of your misconceptions:

The big bang does not attempt to explain how spacetime, or the matter contained within it began expanding. Instead the theory explains occurences after the planck epoch, by which stage the expansion had already occured. So please don't attack a theory for not explaining something that it is not meant to explain.

And do you expect myself, or any other like minded person to be surprised that the theory is still being discussed? I am sure that even the president of the big bang fan club would be willing to admit that the theory is far from perfect. Nobody claims that, so of course it is still being discussed.

A scientific theory or model is only as good as its ability to explain observations. The big bang theory originated from Edwin Hubble's observations that light from galaxies is red shifted, and thus the objects are moving away from us. And that the further away an object is, the faster it is moving. This is exactly what happens in an explosion- the outer objects move faster than the inner objects.

And the big bang theory made predictions, which allowed scientists to test how accurate a picture of the universe it presented. Specifically, it predicted ratios of different types of helium, lithium and deuterium to hydrogen. The relative abundances of these elemets agree with the predictions of the theory.

The big bang also predicted 'background radiation' of a specific temperature coming from all parts of the sky. Not only has this radiation been detected, and not only was the temperature of the radiation almost exactly what the theory predicted, and not only have the density fluctuations been detected that were also predicted, but you can watch it when you turn on your tv (approx. 25% of static on tv is background radiation from the big bang).

So please don't say that, 'The data is very limitited, astronomy is very very limited. We almost know nothing about the universe'. Be critical of the theory by all means, but don't do that and in the same paragraph demonstrate that you actually don't understand the very thing you are denouncing.

Believe what you want- just don't butcher the science.

so we've gone from Ed slagging christian bands... to the science behind the big bang gotta love this place.

ajedigecko

Heineken Helen wrote:

so we've gone from Ed slagging christian bands... to the science behind the big bang gotta love this place.

good to see your name.

i admit though.....if ed had slagged hindu or muslim bands, there would be no topic discussed.

for the record and thread integrity....i do not enjoy christian music, but gospel bluegrass is entertaining.

nowayimfaithfull

has this post come back to the planet earth yet.

catefrances

Heineken Helen wrote:

so we've gone from Ed slagging christian bands... to the science behind the big bang gotta love this place.

well ed's as imperfect as the rest of us and who really gives a toss what he says? im old enough and smart enough to draw my own conclusions and for the most part id bet that nothing ed says predates any thought ive ever had. just shut up and sing boy.

U R A Crazy Breed

catefrances wrote:

so... you're agreeing with me now?

about the origins and reasons for war,not on religion.

we can think differently on religion and still be friends,can't we?

yellowsnowbetter

"my disbelief is more believable than your disbelief." ajedigecko

.

catefrances

Crazy Breed wrote:

about the origins and reasons for war,not on religion.

we can think differently on religion and still be friends,can't we?

so long as you dont try and bless me we'll be fine.

ajedigecko

yellowsnowbetter wrote:

"my disbelief is more believable than your disbelief." ajedigecko

.

please do not take that out of context. if you quote me, i would appreciate it being in full context.

ajedigecko

catefrances wrote:

so long as you dont try and bless me we'll be fine.

so this is how i see it...if one day we are having a dinner together and you sneeze, i will say "bless you." i mean, i would not be offended if the inverse were true and you said something like.."damn you"....i would find that quite funny.

U R A Crazy Breed

catefrances wrote:

so long as you dont try and bless me we'll be fine.

i was going to say "only if you sneeze" but someone beat me to it.

catefrances

please i ask you not to bless me. me sneezing is not my soul trying to escape.

U R A Crazy Breed

catefrances wrote:

please i ask you not to bless me. me sneezing is not my soul trying to escape.

actually it comes from when the "plague" was making it's rounds and when you sneezed people thought you may be coming down with the plague and they would say "God bless you" as in "i hope God keeps you from getting sick"

catefrances

Crazy Breed wrote:

actually it comes from when the "plague" was making it's rounds and when you sneezed people thought you may be coming down with the plague and they would say "God bless you" as in "i hope God keeps you from getting sick"

what can i say... i watch too much simpsons.

whatever its origins, id rather not be blessed.

drsluggo

catefrances wrote:

please i ask you not to bless me. me sneezing is not my soul trying to escape.

What if you just say "Bless you" and not "God bless you" ??

I do it on instinct... I try not to because I suppose saying it everytime loses its meaning anyway... but my mind just doesnt listen and the sound of a sneeze just lets it out of my mouth without the slightest chance to think about it.