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.
Precisely.
I should add that few people think of black holes as round spheres floating in space. They draw in everything within proximity of their event horizon from the big to small, "grinds" everything up, and spits it all back out as massive gamma and xray jets that are light years in size.
It's all a big endless circle of exchange.
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.
OK, here is an indistutable empiric proof that God either does not exist, or is completely insane and should be disregarded.
Are you ready ???
Are you sure you are ready ???????????????????
OK, here it is. Bush says God is on his side. The prime minister/president of Iran says God is on his side. Either they are both wrong and God does not exist, or God is insane for supporting either of these nutters.
OK, here is an indistutable empiric proof that God either does not exist, or is completely insane and should be disregarded.
Are you ready ???
Are you sure you are ready ???????????????????
OK, here it is. Bush says God is on his side. The prime minister/president of Iran says God is on his side. Either they are both wrong and God does not exist, or God is insane for supporting either of these nutters.
"i thought the rockies were going to be a little rockier than this"
i wish i said that.
very well put. if life started with a speck of dust; who put that speck of dust there?
Who put the guy, that put the guy that put the speck of dust there?
Nobody put anything it was already here. It's just what here is.
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.
I like to think of it this way: When man truly finds and understands God, he is God. A being as powerful as God could never be understood by a creature who has a comparatively small intellect such as man.
Man seeks to create order only because he fails to realize that chaos is his natural existence.
science requires a beginning. things don't magically appear in science. that's Gods work.
I thought we put an end to that argument.
It may or may not be God's work. It's beyond our comprehension. God doesn't offer any further understanding, simply an end to further understanding.
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
science requires a beginning. things don't magically appear in science. that's Gods work.
Nothing magically appears. It was all here already here sometime forever ago.
That's infinity which we know is to be true. Science is man looking at everything in great detail. Often with amazing clarity.
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.
i must of missed that. when did we solve the most asked question in the universe? did you notify all the science journals?
it may be beyond your comprehension but i have no trouble comprehending it.
You've constructed it in a way that is comprehensible you, but incomprehensible to me, the comprehension rests in faith, belief without evidence. For that matter, the flying spaghetti monster offers the same comprehension.
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
You've constructed it in a way that is comprehensible you, but incomprehensible to me, the comprehension rests in faith, belief without evidence. For that matter, the flying spaghetti monster offers the same comprehension.
i believe nothing i hear and nothing i read. my comprehension is based on what i can experience; what i can know; the powers i can conjure; and what i can do with my mind. it's something you can't comprehend until you witness it. see it with your own eyes. you'll never believe it until then. a friend of yours has experienced it but you won't believe her either. and i suspect that if you were to witness it; you'd try to find a way to explain it away.
i believe nothing i hear and nothing i read. my comprehension is based on what i can experience; what i can know; the powers i can conjure; and what i can do with my mind. it's something you can't comprehend until you witness it. see it with your own eyes. you'll never believe it until then. a friend of yours has experienced it but you won't believe her either. and i suspect that if you were to witness it; you'd try to find a way to explain it away.
So, when you do some of those drugs you mentioned a while back and have a perception then that is real, even if it fades away later ? Me, I don't actually trust my perceptions that much, or my memory for that matter, cos both are way too vunerable to corruption by various things, including substances, sleep deprivartion, fits, and most prominently, both external and self-hypnosis.
i believe nothing i hear and nothing i read. my comprehension is based on what i can experience; what i can know; the powers i can conjure; and what i can do with my mind. it's something you can't comprehend until you witness it. see it with your own eyes. you'll never believe it until then. a friend of yours has experienced it but you won't believe her either. and i suspect that if you were to witness it; you'd try to find a way to explain it away.
I'm not fussed if people believe or not. That's their journey to make or not as the will takes them.
I only know what I know, and I don't really give a shit if people find it easier for them to explain it all away as chemical, or brain function, or a myriad of other things. I know and I know you know. And as far as I'm concerned that's all that matters.
edit: And it's just occured to me I'm starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld!!! LMAO!!!
How does it go? There are known knowns and there are known unknowns and there are.........................................;)
it may be beyond your comprehension but i have no trouble comprehending it.
I may be misinterpreting this.. but to me it sounds sort of elitist and can see why people may take offense.
in my opinion, some aspects of science can be incredibly complex, but it CAN be learned and comprehended. It just depends on how dedicated you are to learning quantum physics and formulas, etc.
your statement pretty much is saying what YOU experienced is special and only you and certain "special" people can comprehend it.
again, you may not have meant it this way and I am just reading into it differently.
this is what bothers me with many people who are "religious", many explanations deal with "experiences" that only a select few (relatively speaking) can "comprehend" or "appreciate", while science doesn't exclude anyone, everyone is free to learn and try to understand all it has to offer then change it if they want (if they have their own hypothesis and its tested.. etc. whathaveyou.)
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
I'm not fussed if people believe or not. That's their journey to make or not as the will takes them.
I only know what I know, and I don't really give a shit if people find it easier for them to explain it all away as chemical, or brain function, or a myriad of other things. I know and I know you know. And as far as I'm concerned that's all that matters.
edit: And it's just occured to me I'm starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld!!! LMAO!!!
How does it go? There are known knowns and there are known unknowns and there are.........................................;)
Perhaps being through a heightened emotional state opens receptors in your brain or perhaps the soul can link with others? I don't really need a scientific explaination or any other kind. I think that kinda takes all the feeling out of it anyway.
Somethings just aren't further enhanced by clinical explaination in my opinion.
And I'm sure plenty of cultures that practice meditation and the like would agree.
I may be misinterpreting this.. but to me it sounds sort of elitist and can see why people may take offense.
in my opinion, some aspects of science can be incredibly complex, but it CAN be learned and comprehended. It just depends on how dedicated you are to learning quantum physics and formulas, etc.
your statement pretty much is saying what YOU experienced is special and only you and certain "special" people can comprehend it.
again, you may not have meant it this way and I am just reading into it differently.
this is what bothers me with many people who are "religious", many explanations deal with "experiences" that only a select few (relatively speaking) can "comprehend" or "appreciate", while science doesn't exclude anyone, everyone is free to learn and try to understand all it has to offer then change it if they want (if they have their own hypothesis and its tested.. etc. whathaveyou.)
I don't see OLS that way. Although I can see why you might. But then Ahnimus insistances on science can also be viewed as elitist and condescending at times too. It's all perspective. Both of them have very interesting arguments and watching them debate from their prospective points of view is always a learning experience.
scw I don't know that dedication is the only thing required to learn quantum physics and formulas. I think that some people have excellent mental skills for the application of science and others have excellent mental skills for the application of emotion, arts and the like. Some people have both!!! And that's ok. It's excellent actually.
Because we need people to see things differently. Science is helped by the faithful just as religion is helped by science. Speaking as someone who's brain shuts down like an iron trap when things get too complicated, I have to say that both science and religion or spirituality (because I suspect that is more what OLS is talking about than religion) are very important. I think the most important thing is acceptance. Acceptance of one another's point of view and the understanding that much can be learned on either side, (although I wish there were no "sides") of a debate, simply by listening, not judging.
How does that quote go?
"I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it?"
I don't see true atheism as having anything to do with science. We don't know enough about science or spirituality to have a definitive opinion on either. All of these scientists who go around claiming that science disproves god really don't have the background or knowledge about science to make that claim with a straight face.
I chose not to believe in god because I realized why I believed in him in the first place. Something was missing in my life, and the concept of a god who is watching over me filled that void. Once that void was filled without the use of a god, it became clear that god was really a means to an end, and that the end didn't justify the means.
So, atheism is not really about proving or disproving god. It's about knowing why most of us tend to need a god.
scw I don't know that dedication is the only thing required to learn quantum physics and formulas. I think that some people have excellent mental skills for the application of science and others have excellent mental skills for the application of emotion, arts and the like. Some people have both!!! And that's ok. It's excellent actually.
Because we need people to see things differently. Science is helped by the faithful just as religion is helped by science. Speaking as someone who's brain shuts down like an iron trap when things get too complicated, I have to say that both science and religion or spirituality (because I suspect that is more what OLS is talking about than religion) are very important. I think the most important thing is acceptance. Acceptance of one another's point of view and the understanding that much can be learned on either side, (although I wish there were no "sides") of a debate, simply by listening, not judging.
How does that quote go?
"I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it?"
I know everyone has a right to speak what they want. I agree. I'm a strong supporter of that.
I guess I mean within this context of this debate/discussion/argument... Most everyone has a claim etc. and supports it... I guess I just feel there is nothing contributed to the progression of "understanding" or the progression of the debate when someone makes claims then backs it up with "I get it... you just can't comprehend it". I don't understand about 60% of the things said in here but many of the science "opinions" provide links etc. so I can at least ATTEMPT to read and understand.
Maybe I just don't like people making claims they can't even BEGIN to provide ANY evidence for. (I don't count "I had an experience, you just don't get it" as evidence.)
Also, while some people are more adept at understanding calculus or physics MUCH better than others, I still believe (short of mental retardation/disability etc.) that ANYONE can learn the sciences if they put enough time into it and are committed to it.
Anyways, I usually just lurk around and take it all in. I only comment when something strikes me. Please everyone, continue the discussion.
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
I don't see true atheism as having anything to do with science. We don't know enough about science or spirituality to have a definitive opinion on either. All of these scientists who go around claiming that science disproves god really don't have the background or knowledge about science to make that claim with a straight face.
I chose not to believe in god because I realized why I believed in him in the first place. Something was missing in my life, and the concept of a god who is watching over me filled that void. Once that void was filled without the use of a god, it became clear that god was really a means to an end, and that the end didn't justify the means.
So, atheism is not really about proving or disproving god. It's about knowing why most of us tend to need a god.
Thanks Sponger. I didn't represent that view very well. I know there are many different views that are classified as atheist, all much different from the next.
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 don't see true atheism as having anything to do with science. We don't know enough about science or spirituality to have a definitive opinion on either. All of these scientists who go around claiming that science disproves god really don't have the background or knowledge about science to make that claim with a straight face.
I chose not to believe in god because I realized why I believed in him in the first place. Something was missing in my life, and the concept of a god who is watching over me filled that void. Once that void was filled without the use of a god, it became clear that god was really a means to an end, and that the end didn't justify the means.
Following you here....
So, atheism is not really about proving or disproving god. It's about knowing why most of us tend to need a god.
Lost you a little bit here. Especially the last sentence. Isn't this a problem with an atheistic view because its assuming why most people might believe in a higher power or entity. People believe in these things for so many reasons.
Why do most of us need a god? I think for some people it may be to fill a void, or strength? But for others its as clear or real as day. Might not be for an atheist though...
Hope I'm making sense...:)
"She knows there is no success like failure
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
I don't see true atheism as having anything to do with science. We don't know enough about science or spirituality to have a definitive opinion on either. All of these scientists who go around claiming that science disproves god really don't have the background or knowledge about science to make that claim with a straight face.
I chose not to believe in god because I realized why I believed in him in the first place. Something was missing in my life, and the concept of a god who is watching over me filled that void. Once that void was filled without the use of a god, it became clear that god was really a means to an end, and that the end didn't justify the means.
So, atheism is not really about proving or disproving god. It's about knowing why most of us tend to need a god.
Excellent post sponger. I agree. I think pretty much as you do. However, for whatever reason, which I cannot explain, or back up with scientific evidence, I cannot deny that I have a spiritual side. And that connection is possible between human beings on levels that I don't think have been adequately explained by science or religion. And I'm happy to take that as "just is" in my case. And I know others do too. And not that this also not the case for others. And it's all good. I certainly welcome the views of all people. And I don't see how someone's belief or not really impacts on my ability to enjoy their company or understand their views. It would be the behaviour that would stop me from wanting to know a person, not their beliefs.
Comments
Precisely.
I should add that few people think of black holes as round spheres floating in space. They draw in everything within proximity of their event horizon from the big to small, "grinds" everything up, and spits it all back out as massive gamma and xray jets that are light years in size.
It's all a big endless circle of exchange.
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)
(")_(")
Are you ready ???
Are you sure you are ready ???????????????????
OK, here it is. Bush says God is on his side. The prime minister/president of Iran says God is on his side. Either they are both wrong and God does not exist, or God is insane for supporting either of these nutters.
i wish i said that.
very well put. if life started with a speck of dust; who put that speck of dust there?
"i thought the rockies were going to be a little rockier than this"
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.
lol, just kidding.
I would say nature.
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.
Who put the guy, that put the guy that put the speck of dust there?
Nobody put anything it was already here. It's just what here is.
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)
(")_(")
but man also "believes" in God... so maybe thats a flaw too, that 87% of people suffer from...
dun dun dun
The Sentence Above Is False
Maybe 87% of Americans, but not 87% of the planet, and certainly not %87 of all eopple that have ever lived. But you have a good point !!!
The Sentence Above Is False
science requires a beginning. things don't magically appear in science. that's Gods work.
I think the first three words of the bible are:
"In the beginning..."
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.
I thought we put an end to that argument.
It may or may not be God's work. It's beyond our comprehension. God doesn't offer any further understanding, simply an end to further understanding.
This is a perfect post !!
i must of missed that. when did we solve the most asked question in the universe? did you notify all the science journals?
it may be beyond your comprehension but i have no trouble comprehending it.
Nothing magically appears. It was all here already here sometime forever ago.
That's infinity which we know is to be true. Science is man looking at everything in great detail. Often with amazing clarity.
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)
(")_(")
You've constructed it in a way that is comprehensible you, but incomprehensible to me, the comprehension rests in faith, belief without evidence. For that matter, the flying spaghetti monster offers the same comprehension.
i believe nothing i hear and nothing i read. my comprehension is based on what i can experience; what i can know; the powers i can conjure; and what i can do with my mind. it's something you can't comprehend until you witness it. see it with your own eyes. you'll never believe it until then. a friend of yours has experienced it but you won't believe her either. and i suspect that if you were to witness it; you'd try to find a way to explain it away.
so it was always here and one day; billions of years later; POOF life. ok; go with that if it helps you sleep. you must be young.
So, when you do some of those drugs you mentioned a while back and have a perception then that is real, even if it fades away later ? Me, I don't actually trust my perceptions that much, or my memory for that matter, cos both are way too vunerable to corruption by various things, including substances, sleep deprivartion, fits, and most prominently, both external and self-hypnosis.
I only know what I know, and I don't really give a shit if people find it easier for them to explain it all away as chemical, or brain function, or a myriad of other things. I know and I know you know. And as far as I'm concerned that's all that matters.
edit: And it's just occured to me I'm starting to sound like Donald Rumsfeld!!! LMAO!!!
How does it go? There are known knowns and there are known unknowns and there are.........................................;)
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I may be misinterpreting this.. but to me it sounds sort of elitist and can see why people may take offense.
in my opinion, some aspects of science can be incredibly complex, but it CAN be learned and comprehended. It just depends on how dedicated you are to learning quantum physics and formulas, etc.
your statement pretty much is saying what YOU experienced is special and only you and certain "special" people can comprehend it.
again, you may not have meant it this way and I am just reading into it differently.
this is what bothers me with many people who are "religious", many explanations deal with "experiences" that only a select few (relatively speaking) can "comprehend" or "appreciate", while science doesn't exclude anyone, everyone is free to learn and try to understand all it has to offer then change it if they want (if they have their own hypothesis and its tested.. etc. whathaveyou.)
The Sentence Above Is False
Yeah but you're not testifying before Congress.
Well said my dear. I wholeheartedly agree.
Perhaps being through a heightened emotional state opens receptors in your brain or perhaps the soul can link with others? I don't really need a scientific explaination or any other kind. I think that kinda takes all the feeling out of it anyway.
Somethings just aren't further enhanced by clinical explaination in my opinion.
And I'm sure plenty of cultures that practice meditation and the like would agree.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I don't see OLS that way. Although I can see why you might. But then Ahnimus insistances on science can also be viewed as elitist and condescending at times too. It's all perspective. Both of them have very interesting arguments and watching them debate from their prospective points of view is always a learning experience.
scw I don't know that dedication is the only thing required to learn quantum physics and formulas. I think that some people have excellent mental skills for the application of science and others have excellent mental skills for the application of emotion, arts and the like. Some people have both!!! And that's ok. It's excellent actually.
Because we need people to see things differently. Science is helped by the faithful just as religion is helped by science. Speaking as someone who's brain shuts down like an iron trap when things get too complicated, I have to say that both science and religion or spirituality (because I suspect that is more what OLS is talking about than religion) are very important. I think the most important thing is acceptance. Acceptance of one another's point of view and the understanding that much can be learned on either side, (although I wish there were no "sides") of a debate, simply by listening, not judging.
How does that quote go?
"I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it?"
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I chose not to believe in god because I realized why I believed in him in the first place. Something was missing in my life, and the concept of a god who is watching over me filled that void. Once that void was filled without the use of a god, it became clear that god was really a means to an end, and that the end didn't justify the means.
So, atheism is not really about proving or disproving god. It's about knowing why most of us tend to need a god.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I know everyone has a right to speak what they want. I agree. I'm a strong supporter of that.
I guess I mean within this context of this debate/discussion/argument... Most everyone has a claim etc. and supports it... I guess I just feel there is nothing contributed to the progression of "understanding" or the progression of the debate when someone makes claims then backs it up with "I get it... you just can't comprehend it". I don't understand about 60% of the things said in here but many of the science "opinions" provide links etc. so I can at least ATTEMPT to read and understand.
Maybe I just don't like people making claims they can't even BEGIN to provide ANY evidence for. (I don't count "I had an experience, you just don't get it" as evidence.)
Also, while some people are more adept at understanding calculus or physics MUCH better than others, I still believe (short of mental retardation/disability etc.) that ANYONE can learn the sciences if they put enough time into it and are committed to it.
Anyways, I usually just lurk around and take it all in. I only comment when something strikes me. Please everyone, continue the discussion.
The Sentence Above Is False
Thanks Sponger. I didn't represent that view very well. I know there are many different views that are classified as atheist, all much different from the next.
Lost you a little bit here. Especially the last sentence. Isn't this a problem with an atheistic view because its assuming why most people might believe in a higher power or entity. People believe in these things for so many reasons.
Why do most of us need a god? I think for some people it may be to fill a void, or strength? But for others its as clear or real as day. Might not be for an atheist though...
Hope I'm making sense...:)
And that failure's no success at all."
"Don't ya think its sometimes wise not to grow up."
"Cause life ain't nothing but a good groove
A good mixed tape to put you in the right mood."
Excellent post sponger. I agree. I think pretty much as you do. However, for whatever reason, which I cannot explain, or back up with scientific evidence, I cannot deny that I have a spiritual side. And that connection is possible between human beings on levels that I don't think have been adequately explained by science or religion. And I'm happy to take that as "just is" in my case. And I know others do too. And not that this also not the case for others. And it's all good. I certainly welcome the views of all people. And I don't see how someone's belief or not really impacts on my ability to enjoy their company or understand their views. It would be the behaviour that would stop me from wanting to know a person, not their beliefs.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift