Ancient scripts are no more proof of God than the existence of the universe itself. Ancient scripts were made by men. This is fallacious slippery-slope argument.
Hence the theory of the Illuminati, being based in texts from ancient Sumer.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The internal reality, but not the external reality. The earth has always revolved around the sun in the external reality, hence why copernicus was able to see it as such. Two different things though, internal and external realities.
The fact that the earth does (and always has) revolved around the sun represents the best scientific knowledge that we have access to at this time. I believe it to be true, but new scientific knowledge could disprove it at any point in time, just as Copernicus did with teh geocentric theory. To say what external knowledge is with any kind of certainty is impossible, which was the point I was attempting to make.
One of the points I was trying to make is that many atheists simply don't care about the cause of their own existence.
A true atheist would say that by discounting divine providence and faith, and placing the consequences of their life in only their own hands, they are more careful about the causes and effects of their lives than anyone else.
"They will both aim to identify the elusive Higgs boson (known as the "God particle" because of its importance to the Standard Model), look for so-called supersymmetric particles and seek out the existence of extra dimensions."
That may be one goal, but they are also interested in the discovery of Gravitrons and the further analysis of quarks and gluons. What they've seen at Fermilab is black-hole type stuff. When they smash the particles together they don't seperate into pieces as one would expect, they stick to each other and stretch like a glue, hence the name gluons. The whole process lasts a fraction of a second, it's believed that some black-hole type effect consumes the entire reaction.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
find a talking mouse and i'll ask him. until then i'll go with instinct; ie: reproduction; eating; and defending itself.
According to astrophysicists and cosmologists the entire universe is made from hydrogen alone.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
find a talking mouse and i'll ask him. until then i'll go with instinct; ie: reproduction; eating; and defending itself.
Depends what you put merit to as being alive or existing. It doesn't change the fact that we aren't the only thing alive and interacting directly with this universe.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If you do that then it gives some creedance to what the anti-atheists are trying to convince people of. Besides I guarantee there is already a "Church of Atheism" much as there is a "Church of the Universe" for people that like to smoke pot.
That may be one goal, but they are also interested in the discovery of Gravitrons and the further analysis of quarks and gluons. What they've seen at Fermilab is black-hole type stuff. When they smash the particles together they don't seperate into pieces as one would expect, they stick to each other and stretch like a glue, hence the name gluons. The whole process lasts a fraction of a second, it's believed that some black-hole type effect consumes the entire reaction.
This is all way over my head. I heard something about devouring the solar system, and I just wanted to know if I should cancel my chemo and get a bunch of new credit cards.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
find a talking mouse and i'll ask him. until then i'll go with instinct; ie: reproduction; eating; and defending itself.
Damn, what was that organism that consumes methane and excretes oxygen. I know there is a name for the type of organism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
This is all way over my head. I heard something about devouring the solar system, and I just wanted to know if I should cancel my chemo and get a bunch of new credit cards.
I wish you could cancel your chemo and get that treatment in Germany.
science is based on man and mans conclusions. man is flawed therefore science must be flawed.
Umm, the ancient texts from Sumer are just like the ancient hebrew texts you base your faith on. It's not science, but an example of another human creation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That may be one goal, but they are also interested in the discovery of Gravitrons and the further analysis of quarks and gluons. What they've seen at Fermilab is black-hole type stuff. When they smash the particles together they don't seperate into pieces as one would expect, they stick to each other and stretch like a glue, hence the name gluons. The whole process lasts a fraction of a second, it's believed that some black-hole type effect consumes the entire reaction.
It will be very interesting to discover a more complete picture on the origins of mass. Does mass indicate existence? and at what point does something not exist, also where does it "go" (or does it).
All interesting things to find out.
If our bodies lose no mass at death then could a spirit even exist? A spirit would need some mass right? We are a medley of the periodic scale. Even a magic spiritual force, to exist or interact, or affect us, would require some form of mass.
could be very interesting indeed.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The fact that the earth does (and always has) revolved around the sun represents the best scientific knowledge that we have access to at this time. I believe it to be true, but new scientific knowledge could disprove it at any point in time, just as Copernicus did with teh geocentric theory. To say what external knowledge is with any kind of certainty is impossible, which was the point I was attempting to make.
Fair enough, but operationally the current knowledge stands as fact and for all intents and purposes it is right.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It will be very interesting to discover a more complete picture on the origins of mass. Does mass indicate existence? and at what point does something not exist, also where does it "go" (or does it).
All interesting things to find out.
If our bodies lose no mass at death then could a spirit even exist? A spirit would need some mass right? We are a medley of the periodic scale. Even a magic spiritual force, to exist or interact, or affect us, would require some form of mass.
could be very interesting indeed.
Well light is apparently massless. But I have a problem with that theory. It contradicts with black-hole theory that suggests the gravitational force of a black-hole is great enough to asborb light, and we know gravity is based on mass. So in order for a black-hole to absorb light, the light must have a mass.
This is all unkowns though. It's all speculation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Umm, the ancient texts from Sumer are just like the ancient hebrew texts you base your faith on. It's not science, but an example of another human creation.
at least once a week i say that religion was created by man in his quest for power. my beliefs are based on experience. nothing else.
i'm only comparing science to religion. both created by man and both flawed.
at least once a week i say that religion was created by man in his quest for power. my beliefs are based on experience. nothing else.
i'm only comparing science to religion. both created by man and both flawed.
Is there any theory superior to science?
If we say that as humans which are flawed, and understanding we create is ultimately flawed, then I ask, what is the best or least flawed method of understanding, and my answer is science.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If we say that as humans which are flawed, and understanding we create is ultimately flawed, then I ask, what is the best or least flawed method of understanding, and my answer is science.
i believe science proves the existence of God; so you're asking the wrong person if you want the answer you want to hear.
agreed; until technology advances and possibly proves it wrong.
as has been done throughout history.
Well, you aren't going to find proof that computers don't work, because quite obviously they do or we wouldn't be having this discusison. Computers were developed through scientific understanding and logic.
They are just one clear example of science being so damn good that it's not likely to prove it's self wrong in the future.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i believe science proves the existence of God; so you're asking the wrong person if you want the answer you want to hear.
How does science prove the existence of God?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, you aren't going to find proof that computers don't work, because quite obviously they do or we wouldn't be having this discusison. Computers were developed through scientific understanding and logic.
They are just one clear example of science being so damn good that it's not likely to prove it's self wrong in the future.
so computers don't advance? are you saying a 10 year old computer is the same as a new one? that's crazy. computers advance every day. bill gates once said that 500 mb will be all the memory a personal computer will ever need.
you brought a perfect example of how technology advances.
That may be one goal, but they are also interested in the discovery of Gravitrons and the further analysis of quarks and gluons. What they've seen at Fermilab is black-hole type stuff. When they smash the particles together they don't seperate into pieces as one would expect, they stick to each other and stretch like a glue, hence the name gluons. The whole process lasts a fraction of a second, it's believed that some black-hole type effect consumes the entire reaction.
Basically they're creating precise replicas of the big bang at will. We'll be able to anlayze and study exactly what happened at the point of all creation we can physically observe from the "smallest" to the "largest".
It's like watching our part or "cross section" of the universe being born from various angles of perception and study.
The universe (to my understanding) is a constant flow of gases (mainly hydrogen) compressing under pressure, igniting into "stars", then exploding ....again and again and everywhere. It's a closed loop cycle of renewal.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If we say that as humans which are flawed, and understanding we create is ultimately flawed, then I ask, what is the best or least flawed method of understanding, and my answer is science.
I like Nature, myself. Of course, is Nature even a theory? Through nature came man and his science.
Comments
Hence the theory of the Illuminati, being based in texts from ancient Sumer.
The fact that the earth does (and always has) revolved around the sun represents the best scientific knowledge that we have access to at this time. I believe it to be true, but new scientific knowledge could disprove it at any point in time, just as Copernicus did with teh geocentric theory. To say what external knowledge is with any kind of certainty is impossible, which was the point I was attempting to make.
A true atheist would say that by discounting divine providence and faith, and placing the consequences of their life in only their own hands, they are more careful about the causes and effects of their lives than anyone else.
there's more to life than methane and rain.
find a talking mouse and i'll ask him. until then i'll go with instinct; ie: reproduction; eating; and defending itself.
That may be one goal, but they are also interested in the discovery of Gravitrons and the further analysis of quarks and gluons. What they've seen at Fermilab is black-hole type stuff. When they smash the particles together they don't seperate into pieces as one would expect, they stick to each other and stretch like a glue, hence the name gluons. The whole process lasts a fraction of a second, it's believed that some black-hole type effect consumes the entire reaction.
science is based on man and mans conclusions. man is flawed therefore science must be flawed.
According to astrophysicists and cosmologists the entire universe is made from hydrogen alone.
Depends what you put merit to as being alive or existing. It doesn't change the fact that we aren't the only thing alive and interacting directly with this universe.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Church of the Universe sounds intriguing.
Faith is a machination of mankind.
Mankind is flawed.
/.: Faith is flawed.
It's a lot more simple than you make it out to be.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Damn, what was that organism that consumes methane and excretes oxygen. I know there is a name for the type of organism.
I wish you could cancel your chemo and get that treatment in Germany.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Umm, the ancient texts from Sumer are just like the ancient hebrew texts you base your faith on. It's not science, but an example of another human creation.
It will be very interesting to discover a more complete picture on the origins of mass. Does mass indicate existence? and at what point does something not exist, also where does it "go" (or does it).
All interesting things to find out.
If our bodies lose no mass at death then could a spirit even exist? A spirit would need some mass right? We are a medley of the periodic scale. Even a magic spiritual force, to exist or interact, or affect us, would require some form of mass.
could be very interesting indeed.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Fair enough, but operationally the current knowledge stands as fact and for all intents and purposes it is right.
Agreed, at least in the sense that it is accurate enough to allow us to explore further.
Well light is apparently massless. But I have a problem with that theory. It contradicts with black-hole theory that suggests the gravitational force of a black-hole is great enough to asborb light, and we know gravity is based on mass. So in order for a black-hole to absorb light, the light must have a mass.
This is all unkowns though. It's all speculation.
at least once a week i say that religion was created by man in his quest for power. my beliefs are based on experience. nothing else.
i'm only comparing science to religion. both created by man and both flawed.
Is there any theory superior to science?
If we say that as humans which are flawed, and understanding we create is ultimately flawed, then I ask, what is the best or least flawed method of understanding, and my answer is science.
agreed; until technology advances and possibly proves it wrong.
as has been done throughout history.
i believe science proves the existence of God; so you're asking the wrong person if you want the answer you want to hear.
Well, you aren't going to find proof that computers don't work, because quite obviously they do or we wouldn't be having this discusison. Computers were developed through scientific understanding and logic.
They are just one clear example of science being so damn good that it's not likely to prove it's self wrong in the future.
How does science prove the existence of God?
so computers don't advance? are you saying a 10 year old computer is the same as a new one? that's crazy. computers advance every day. bill gates once said that 500 mb will be all the memory a personal computer will ever need.
you brought a perfect example of how technology advances.
why do you ask me complex questions at the end of the day?
in a sentence; matter cannot be created from nothing. thus; science proves how God made us to be self supporting.
Basically they're creating precise replicas of the big bang at will. We'll be able to anlayze and study exactly what happened at the point of all creation we can physically observe from the "smallest" to the "largest".
It's like watching our part or "cross section" of the universe being born from various angles of perception and study.
The universe (to my understanding) is a constant flow of gases (mainly hydrogen) compressing under pressure, igniting into "stars", then exploding ....again and again and everywhere. It's a closed loop cycle of renewal.
Have you seen these? check em out.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/335005/the_grand_scheme_of_things/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nroo-i8t8vg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I like Nature, myself. Of course, is Nature even a theory? Through nature came man and his science.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.