PDA

View Full Version : Internet on Einstein



Scythe Death
05-17-2008, 11:27 AM
Every once in a while there's something about religious people that irks me to a great extent. Now let's take a look at this:

Einstein's Letter in AOL News (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/einstein-letter-sells-for-404000/20080516165109990001?icid=100214839x1202307046x120 0087537)

For some time now, there's been debate on whether Einstein believed in God or not. It's now settled, at least for me (I haven't been keeping track of these discussions) that he viewed organized faith as idiocy, but he was open to the belief that there may be a "spiritual force" working at background of the universe. This idea has been adopted by so many great thinkers throughout history and the present.

Knowing that Einstein rejected religion was something that contented me; I thought that people would perhaps be less stubborn and become more open minded regarding their beliefs by taking word from one of the most famous and highly regarded physicists. However, as it is common from internet comments, I was disappointed at the reaction of the readers of this article. People are actually eschewing Einstein and questioning his intelligence based on his rejection towards religion.

It is deplorable that people are eschewing Einstein for such arbitrary reasons. I say arbitrary because arbitrariness is the sole foundation of belief in people.

How can people say religion isn't for the weak minded when they just seem to prove the opposite? (I'm all for debating this.)

Jebus
05-17-2008, 11:50 AM
How can people say religion isn't for the weak minded when they just seem to prove the opposite?
You know it was a catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory. A monk also built the foundation for genetics. Stop generalizing and being a douche.

Little_Miss_1565
05-17-2008, 12:12 PM
You know it was a catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory. A monk also built the foundation for genetics. Stop generalizing and being a douche.

Jebus 1, inexplicable fear of the beliefs of others 0.

Endymion
05-17-2008, 01:50 PM
a catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory

he was a pretty good scientist in general, and also mathematician and early computer proponent.

various high level dudes in the roman catholic church have promoted both evolution and that there may be 'children of god' on other planets in the universe.

Scythe Death
05-17-2008, 02:41 PM
You know it was a catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang theory. A monk also built the foundation for genetics. Stop generalizing and being a douche.

I'm not saying that religious people are stupid, I mean that religion is for the weak minded in the way that it is an escapism for death among many things. Even if he was a Catholic Priest, the big bang theory basically goes the fundamentals of his religion.

There's been Priests that have written books as to why God doesn't exist.

Mota Boy
05-17-2008, 09:10 PM
Believing that belief or non-belief in religion signifies any characteristic in people other than belief or non-belief in religion is silly.

To say that questioning the intelligence of Einstein regarding his stance on an "arbitrary" characteristic such as religiosity is silly, then turning around and calling everyone who believes in religion "weak-minded" is an example of cognitive dissonance. You take comfort that Einstein agrees with you and seek to defend him, but were Einstein to actually profess a belief in God, he'd just be "weak-minded" on the subject and thus his opinion would be irrelevant.

Personally, I see no direct connection between intelligence and religiosity. I do believe, however, that as education and cosmopolitanism increases, religiosity declines, as other ideas enter in, crowd out and out-compete religion in various spheres of knowledge.

The thing you've got to realize, however, is that the dividing line, if you so wish to demarcate one, isn't between believers and non-believers, but between those that understand that a degree of religiosity is just another aspect of a human being (which you seem to do when someone is an atheist) and those that feel it is a signifier of some inherent superiority or inferiority (which you seem to do when someone is religious).

OffspringHead
05-17-2008, 09:38 PM
I'm not 100% sure about this but didn't Einstein say that the more and more he learned about science the more he believed it God? Or maybe that was a different scientist.

And wasn't he jewish? He escaped from Germany just before the Nazis came to his village or something.

Spud
05-18-2008, 04:35 PM
From what I understand, Einstein was a Deist. He believed in God, but was a little more skeptical of the idea of Him being directly involved with the affair of the world.

he also once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Sure doesn't sound like the words of an atheist.

Scythe Death
05-18-2008, 09:50 PM
Believing that belief or non-belief in religion signifies any characteristic in people other than belief or non-belief in religion is silly.

To say that questioning the intelligence of Einstein regarding his stance on an "arbitrary" characteristic such as religiosity is silly, then turning around and calling everyone who believes in religion "weak-minded" is an example of cognitive dissonance. You take comfort that Einstein agrees with you and seek to defend him, but were Einstein to actually profess a belief in God, he'd just be "weak-minded" on the subject and thus his opinion would be irrelevant.

Personally, I see no direct connection between intelligence and religiosity. I do believe, however, that as education and cosmopolitanism increases, religiosity declines, as other ideas enter in, crowd out and out-compete religion in various spheres of knowledge.

The thing you've got to realize, however, is that the dividing line, if you so wish to demarcate one, isn't between believers and non-believers, but between those that understand that a degree of religiosity is just another aspect of a human being (which you seem to do when someone is an atheist) and those that feel it is a signifier of some inherent superiority or inferiority (which you seem to do when someone is religious).

Saying that belief or non-belief signifying characteristics in people is silly is even more silly; it ignores the fact that it's a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking.

It's, unfortunately, not as simple as you wish it was since both grounds (theism and atheism) have an inherent difference in thought. It's not as black and white. It's certainly untrue to say that whether you believe or not doesn't make a difference; there's a whole complex of thought behind this.

In regards towards you personal beliefs, you act like if people were generic beings, basing their beliefs on knowledge only. A person may be of a great intellectual potential and of great knowledge, but "a weakness of mind" can only be attributed to a person as a psychological trait. Knowledge isn't as simply integrated into a persons thought as you make it seem, the way knowledge influences a person is up to the way this person takes it, since this person may as well just eschew the new ideas.

I would never think that Einstein's opinion on religion would be irrelevant just like that either. I've always taken theist arguments with an open mind, it's just that these have always failed to make a point.


I'm also willing to debate whether religion is actually detrimental to humanity.

Little_Miss_1565
05-18-2008, 09:55 PM
I'm also willing to debate whether religion is actually detrimental to humanity.

But is anybody else?

Scythe Death
05-18-2008, 10:38 PM
But is anybody else?

I don't know. Maybe if I make this like... a lot more.. like.. offensive.

Little_Miss_1565
05-18-2008, 10:52 PM
I don't know. Maybe if I make this like... a lot more.. like.. offensive.

It's already pretty offensive. You've already clearly made up your mind on the subject so calling it a "debate" is patently false, and only designed to lure someone into having an argument with you.

Scythe Death
05-18-2008, 11:20 PM
It's already pretty offensive. You've already clearly made up your mind on the subject so calling it a "debate" is patently false, and only designed to lure someone into having an argument with you.

Your point?

Mota Boy
05-18-2008, 11:23 PM
Saying that belief or non-belief signifying characteristics in people is silly is even more silly; it ignores the fact that it's a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking.

It's, unfortunately, not as simple as you wish it was since both grounds (theism and atheism) have an inherent difference in thought. It's not as black and white. It's certainly untrue to say that whether you believe or not doesn't make a difference; there's a whole complex of thought behind this.


It is deplorable that people are eschewing Einstein for such arbitrary reasons. I say arbitrary because arbitrariness is the sole foundation of belief in people.

Taking things one at a time here, you are saying that belief or non belief in an individual is a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking, while also being completely arbitrary and thus a silly reason to criticize someone.

You are contradicting yourself so heavily that it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

Little_Miss_1565
05-18-2008, 11:38 PM
Your point?

My point? What I described is trolling.

Jebus
05-19-2008, 12:08 AM
Oh now I remember you. You're that guy (http://offspring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30979). What's your obsession with this?

I mean that religion is for the weak minded in the way that it is an escapism for death among many things.
The thing that bothers me about debating on the internet is that you can always backtrack to one of your points and say you meant something else when a flaw is found in your argument.

The entire point of your first post was basically religion is for idiots and closed minded people and Einstein agrees with me. So idiocy and close mindedness what I naturally inferred by "weak minded." Then you change your definition of weak minded to "escapism from death." What does that have to do with anything you said in your original post?

Scythe Death
05-19-2008, 07:50 AM
Taking things one at a time here, you are saying that belief or non belief in an individual is a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking, while also being completely arbitrary and thus a silly reason to criticize someone.

You are contradicting yourself so heavily that it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

You're worthless. It's not arbitrary, it's basic understanding of the human mind. It's not arbitrary at all. Most of the people don't have a belief just because yes.

You're trying too hard to bring arguments together.


My point? What I described is trolling.
Yes.. so?

Actually, I'm trying to be a little more serious about this than I was last time. I want some good arguments you guys can give me instead of trying to make you guys mad.


The thing that bothers me about debating on the internet is that you can always backtrack to one of your points and say you meant something else when a flaw is found in your argument.

The entire point of your first post was basically religion is for idiots and closed minded people and Einstein agrees with me. So idiocy and close mindedness what I naturally inferred by "weak minded." Then you change your definition of weak minded to "escapism from death." What does that have to do with anything you said in your original post?
What a good straw man.





That's a logical fallacy by the way.

wheelchairman
05-19-2008, 07:59 AM
You're worthless. It's not arbitrary, it's basic understanding of the human mind. It's not arbitrary at all. Most of the people don't have a belief just because yes.

You're trying too hard to bring arguments together.


Yes.. so?

Actually, I'm trying to be a little more serious about this than I was last time. I want some good arguments you guys can give me instead of trying to make you guys mad.


What a good straw man.





That's a logical fallacy by the way.
Speaking of logical fallacies. (And a Straw man argument is not a logical fallacy.)

However an ad-hominem comment is a logical fallacy. Instead of picking apart his argument, you pick apart the man. It's a dirty method of debating, as a method of argument it's quite worthless in negating anything, and it changes the atmosphere of the debate greatly.

Besides why should someone debate with you when the history of your debates here consists of trying to make people angry? Your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude is repugnant and you've offered no rebuttals so far to anyone who's replied to you.

With this kind of behavior I don't see why anyone should take you seriously, at all?

Scythe Death
05-19-2008, 08:23 AM
Speaking of logical fallacies. (And a Straw man argument is not a logical fallacy.)

However an ad-hominem comment is a logical fallacy. Instead of picking apart his argument, you pick apart the man. It's a dirty method of debating, as a method of argument it's quite worthless in negating anything, and it changes the atmosphere of the debate greatly.

Besides why should someone debate with you when the history of your debates here consists of trying to make people angry? Your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude is repugnant and you've offered no rebuttals so far to anyone who's replied to you.

With this kind of behavior I don't see why anyone should take you seriously, at all?
Hey look, someone doesn't understand ad hominem completely. My argument wasn't "you're worthless", that was an additional comment. My argument is the sentence next to it. It brings into conversation that what he believes is arbitrary actually has a viable basis in psychology. (Ad hominem is always the first thing people associate with logical fallacies, curiously.)

How isn't the "straw man" a logical fallacy when what this guy is doing is altering the context of my argument into something he can knock down while the straw man twisted reality in such a ludicrous manner, it's simply delusional to apply into my post and, even worse, cling to it.

You're poisoning the well (a logical fallacy) by thinking my purpose is to troll. I've already stated that I'm trying to have an actual argument. I apologize for the past trolling.

I've rebutted Mota's belief that faith is unrelated to a person's way of thinking albeit perhaps not in the quality or explanation that I should. What is there to rebut about Jebus' straw man?

I'm quite sure you understand the premises, let's see an actual argument from you.

Jebus
05-19-2008, 10:01 AM
What a good straw man.
That's a logical fallacy by the way.
Oh, good for you. You know what straw man means.

How about answering my question and explaining how I misinterpreted you? You start off with saying how Einstein thinks religion is foolish and it helps you confirm what you already believe. Then you say religious people should be more open minded because Einstein backs you up. Stop we me when I'm wrong. Then you bring up an isolated incident of people attacking Einstein's intelligence. Finally you say people with religion are weak minded based on those points. Don't you think it's a fair conclusion that by weak minded you meant idiocy and closed mindedness? Where did I twist your words?

So I point out the inherit irony in your post because a catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) of all people actually came up with a central point in cosmology and in your humanistic world view. I mean, how more open minded do you have to be?

You respond by saying that by weak minded you actually meant escapism for death. Now tell me where in your first post does it back up your new definition for weak minded?

Mota Boy
05-19-2008, 11:17 AM
You know, there is a reason that nobody takes you seriously. Now, it could be that everyone else is crazy, but Occam's razor doesn't particularly like that argument.

Scythe Death
05-19-2008, 04:47 PM
You start off with saying how Einstein thinks religion is foolish and it helps you confirm what you already believe.
You started out wrong. I never said that it helps me confirm what I believe. I said I was comforted with that. Not because Einstein says it, it must be true (that would be argumentum ad verrecundiam), but his opinion could at least be considered rather than blatantly eschewed as it was.


Then you say religious people should be more open minded because Einstein backs you up. Then you bring up an isolated incident of people attacking Einstein's intelligence. Finally you say people with religion are weak minded based on those points.
This could be a way to say it, but it does sound rather incriminatory. The case of Einstein was rather just an example of how people eschew anything that puts into jeopardy their mental comfort; my ground isn't based on that incident. It'd be delusional to say that I stand my ground because of Einstein, and we don't really have the same grounds as far as I know.


So I point out the inherit irony in your post because a catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) of all people actually came up with a central point in cosmology and in your humanistic world view. I mean, how more open minded do you have to be?
There's also irony in that a Priest wrote a book as professing that God is fictitious. However, that would be irrelevant.

Lemaître defied the dogmatic principles of religion with his theory. Religion is supposed to be an absolute truth, and science defies religion in so many aspects. Faith is blind, and opting for that instead of actual human research and science to find an answer could be called hindering. Eventually science reaches a point where theories collide with religion, and since believing that religion is an objective truth is puerile, a person might as well go with what makes the most sense (which is science's approach) instead of faith for the sake of comfort and convenience (the sole purpose of religion).

Saying that religiosity doesn't have an inherent characteristic of weak-mindedness because of a person certainly isn't an argument.

@Mota: Occam's Razor... it's more like the excuse for the lazy. The universe is infinite and infinitesimal. It could be infinitely complex (as there will always be a smaller block), but it can at least be understood.

People often discredit science by saying it's way too complex, but they ignore that their belief is inherently more complicated that the answers science can give you. The universe can be explained by viable means through science at least, but when we think of religion, this omnipotent and omnipresent God is infinitely more complex than the universe itself. It's just so plain ridiculous that people give up in trying to explain god, a god that defies so many basic principles of the universe. What is this god made of, when did it start.. so many questions meant to remain unanswered.

What seemed to the simplest answer is actually completely unexplainable. Now this is real cognitive dissonance. If that's your definition of simplest solution, then let's just say that the universe and its order have always existed. Do you see the lapse of logic?

Sunny
05-19-2008, 10:10 PM
awww would you look at that, it's our good ol' delusions of eloquence guy again. how adorables. Scythe Death, lemme pinch yer cheeks!

Vera
05-19-2008, 11:52 PM
Can't you get yourself a free blogspace over at wordpress.com or blogger.com or whatever? Join a militant atheist web forum or go troll a Jesus fan club. Nobody over here cares - fact.

Also, what's your address? I have a copy of The God Delusion I need to get rid of, and I think you'd like it - the writer is also a douche.

Edit: Obviously directed at Scythe, not Sunny.

Scythe Death
05-20-2008, 12:45 AM
awww would you look at that, it's our good ol' delusions of eloquence guy again. how adorables. Scythe Death, lemme pinch yer cheeks!
ok but softly

@Vera: lol. So.. what should I make a topic about? What do you really care about?

Vera
05-20-2008, 01:11 AM
I'm just saying this is clearly a topic you feel passionately about to the point where you feel the need to express yourself in lengthy paragraphs as seen by your earlier "Religion is Gay" thread. If you're looking to rant on the subject, just get yourself a damn blog. Debate on the subject didn't seem to go anywhere last time, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere this time, so why bother?

Endymion
05-20-2008, 01:21 AM
Religion is heterosexual -- point/counter-point.

Mota Boy
05-20-2008, 02:00 AM
By the way, I find it a little coincidental that not three days ago I stumbled across the term Village Atheist Syndrome (http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol10/bullough.html). It's interesting reading.

Scythe Death
05-20-2008, 08:09 AM
I'm just saying this is clearly a topic you feel passionately about to the point where you feel the need to express yourself in lengthy paragraphs as seen by your earlier "Religion is Gay" thread. If you're looking to rant on the subject, just get yourself a damn blog. Debate on the subject didn't seem to go anywhere last time, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere this time, so why bother?
I didn't even debate last time. Made a couple of posts then let the conversation flow. It was a little troll, hence the topic title. I think it did go somewhere last time, which was curious.

@Mota:

There is a chance that I may be a "Village Atheist", but it was presumptuous from you to think of that because of a previous troll and a thread where I'm actually trying to start a better debate.

Scythe Death
05-20-2008, 03:21 PM
So hey, are you going to say anything about my argument on Occam's Razor, Mota?

Llamas
05-20-2008, 05:30 PM
I'm sad that people are still replying to this guy... I find him to be incredibly boring and repetitive. Trolling or not, he doesn't seem worthy of anyone's time.

Sunny
05-20-2008, 06:26 PM
Person who doesn't know how to spell "douchebaggery", I am glaring at you.

Points for effort, though.

Scythe Death
05-20-2008, 06:31 PM
I'm not even repeating anything I've said. God damn.

Ok, next I'll make a thread about how my music is better than yours.

IamSam
05-20-2008, 06:40 PM
Person who doesn't know how to spell "douchebaggery", I am glaring at you.

Points for effort, though.

Sorry!

And thanks.

Seriously agree with llamas. Just don't reply to this dude.

Scythe Death
05-20-2008, 09:20 PM
Sorry!

And thanks.

Seriously agree with llamas. Just don't reply to this dude.

Ah well, go fuck yourself.

Llamas
05-20-2008, 10:22 PM
I'm not even repeating anything I've said. God damn.

You made TWO THREADS about how much you dislike religion. That's pretty damn repetitive, especially considering that you've made like 5 threads total.

EMehl6
05-20-2008, 10:42 PM
This guy really doesn't get the point. To me, unless you're an insane, radical religious person, your beliefs have nothing to do with your intelligence. And by radical, I mean someone like Bin Laden, or Fallwell, or Reverend Wright. You know, crazy people lol. I mean, even the Pope has said religion and evolution can exist in harmony. Come on. I know this is going to make el douchebag go insane, but think about this:

If there was about one quadrillionth of a percent error during the Big Bang, the Universe never would have expanded outward. And look at the complexity of every living thing. I mean, sure, we can say that was all chance and random, but, it seems to me that someone, or something had a hand in that. So, either a lot of random things went right and we ended up with what we have on Earth today, and whatever may lie in the depths of the Universe, or God is one hell of an engineer. I know that statement makes you angry :)

Either way it doesn't matter, and in no way effects my ability to learn physics, calculus, chemistry, and all the other shit I need to learn to get my degree in mechanical engineering. My point is, your argument sucks, and you're an idiot.

Another thing: The more I think about it, the way you attack people for believing in God is pretty much exactly like the crazy bastards that want to kill everyone for not believing exactly what they do. So, you're a piece of shit just like Bin Laden in that respect, and you've essentially launched a personal 'Jihad' against everyone who disagrees with you. Not only is that ignorance, it's just plain fucking stupidity. I hope you take solice in the fact that your're part of the same group of worthless pieces of slut-douche that want everyone to think exactly like them.

In a way, I feel sorry for you. But I just hope I can be there to see the look on your face after you die when God asks you about all your slander of religion and whatnot.

Sunny
05-21-2008, 09:06 AM
it's not even Scythe Death's actual argument that i find ridiculous; sure, it's severely flawed, but it's the "ARGUE WITH ME! PLEASE! COME ON GUYS! GOD SUCKS! RELIGION IS FOR TARDS! RARARA PLEASE SOMEONEEEE" hint of desperation that makes me giggle. he really wants someone to take the bait, doesn't he?

Sincerly-Sixx 13
05-21-2008, 09:17 AM
Dude truely religion I used to be christian now im sick eveythng I hear about it weather or not jesus is real or how we evovled from monkeys really I think it's anoying.

HeadAroundU
05-21-2008, 01:07 PM
Dude you truely evovled from monkey weather or not it's a shiny day.

Looking at your grammar, no wonder things always go to religion.

Scythe Death
05-21-2008, 06:12 PM
This guy really doesn't get the point. To me, unless you're an insane, radical religious person, your beliefs have nothing to do with your intelligence. And by radical, I mean someone like Bin Laden, or Fallwell, or Reverend Wright. You know, crazy people lol. I mean, even the Pope has said religion and evolution can exist in harmony.
Let's start by saying that your definition of radical is in an extremely high standard. Now let's put it this way, everything has its standard. The radicals people you mentioned exhibit the quintessence or highest degree of religious stupidity. For other people of a different standard or degree of religious devotion, the fact that they are religious may not even be noticeable until this person confirms it. This is due to their way of taking religion and integrating it into their beliefs. There will always be standards for everything, so I'm not saying that everyone who is a believer is just as Bin Laden (although I could assert that a majority of people are just as stupid).

The point is that religion will always have this intrinsic characteristic of delusion. Hence, that's why people say it's for the "weak minded."

I really like how you say that I don't get the point when I'm past beyond it.


If there was about one quadrillionth of a percent error during the Big Bang, the Universe never would have expanded outward. And look at the complexity of every living thing. I mean, sure, we can say that was all chance and random, but, it seems to me that someone, or something had a hand in that. So, either a lot of random things went right and we ended up with what we have on Earth today, and whatever may lie in the depths of the Universe, or God is one hell of an engineer. I know that statement makes you angry :)
Nah, that didn't make me angry. I think it was kind of cute. It's funny how you think I'm some sort of psycho tearing my hair off when I read some slightly ignorant arguments in the internet. I'm just a really big jerk.

First off, in these kinds of discussions your definition of complexity means nothing because it's not relative to any other thing. This is because that in an infinitely proportioned universe where matter and energy exist in fluctuating quantities, every perspective can only be considered as mere speculation in an arbitrary basis. There's no objective degree of complexity.

Let's put it this way, living things may be very complex to us in first sight, but maybe in some other place and time there have existed beings more complex than us a hundredfold. We can't point out what's complex and what's not without a comparative basis.

In my opinion, if we were to be created by this perfect being, we could have been much better than we are now. I mean, why would we have useless organs and hair that we don't need anymore? We'd be perfect instead of these primitive beings that spawned from the order that nature has always created from chaos. We'd live in an utopia where god's intentions for creating us would be a primary focus.

It's a natural law. Nature creates order from chaos. From this, let's take your argument about the big bang into account. Let's say there's only 1 in a trillion of chance for a big bang to happen. It looks like impossible, doesn't it? However, the universe is infinite in time and space. If it didn't happen now, it will happen eventually, and the order will be created.

There's one thing I want to mention though. The Eastern religions do not see deities as the source of the universe, but they see them as products of nature. They are more understanding to these things than our Western religions; beliefs that completely ignore how they bend the laws of nature. Eastern philosophy can be so fascinating. I admit though, I barely know anything about it.


Either way it doesn't matter, and in no way effects my ability to learn physics, calculus, chemistry, and all the other shit I need to learn to get my degree in mechanical engineering. My point is, your argument sucks, and you're an idiot.
Your point also fails to prove anything.



Another thing: The more I think about it, the way you attack people for believing in God is pretty much exactly like the crazy bastards that want to kill everyone for not believing exactly what they do. So, you're a piece of shit just like Bin Laden in that respect, and you've essentially launched a personal 'Jihad' against everyone who disagrees with you. Not only is that ignorance, it's just plain fucking stupidity. I hope you take solice in the fact that your're [lol sorry] part of the same group of worthless pieces of slut-douche that want everyone to think exactly like them.

In a way, I feel sorry for you. But I just hope I can be there to see the look on your face after you die when God asks you about all your slander of religion and whatnot.

You've got it wrong again. Your associations are completely ignorant. It's just so plain stupid..

First of all, Bin Laden and his shit of organization are fighting for a dogma. They are not thinkers, they are just brainless pawns of their religion, and religion is just that: a dogma. They are weak minded, and they fight because they want to gain their non-existent heaven.

I, in the other hand, strive to bring logic into people and expand their conscious mind. Religion is just proving to be a hindrance that must be eliminated due to its intrinsic flaws. Atheism and Religion aren't like 1 or two either, that means that atheism isn't just another religion. Atheism is the freedom from dogma from a conscious mind, religion is the burden.

By saying that people who despise or simply disapprove religion are hypocrites (although the bases are completely different), you're calling many philosophers like Marx among many others just another "Bin Laden." Can't you still see the lapse in logic? After all, "atheist is agnostic, but in aggressive."

Oh, and I feel sorry for you when you die and realize that you're going into Xenu's ship, reincarnate into a horse, or anything characteristic of other religions, that just as your own, cannot prove anything about their certainty, and are just that: faith. It'll be nice to see your face when you realize that a religion that hasn't been invented yet happens to be the real truth. It's an infinite argumentum ad baculum.

Let's cut the "toothfairy" agnosticism though. If dogs, monkeys, and dolphins don't have an afterlife, why would humans? Keep telling yourself you're special. That, or sit down and learn something, although it's now impossible for you not to be totally reluctant.



Ahh... that was fun. Now, will someone actually provide me an actual argument that goes up rather than down?

EMehl6
05-21-2008, 06:27 PM
Damn. I was hoping that would appease your need for an argument and shut you up, but apparently I was wrong. Oh well, I tried. You're still an idiot, though.

IamSam
05-21-2008, 06:36 PM
I, in the other hand, strive to bring logic into people and expand their conscious mind. Religion is just proving to be a hindrance that must be eliminated due to its intrinsic flaws. Atheism and Religion aren't like 1 or two either, that means that atheism isn't just another religion. Atheism is the freedom from dogma from a conscious mind, religion is the burden.



Dogma: noun:
1. a system of principles or tenets
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Atheism: noun:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

According to you there is no dogma attached to atheism. However, the principle of atheism is dogma. Dogma handed down prescribing to the disbelief in God. It is a settled/established opinion based upon this fact.

So, based upon this, you are just as weak minded as the people you are currently attacking.

Pot, meet kettle.

Endymion
05-21-2008, 06:45 PM
quick rule if you want to be taken seriously -- don't spout random physics crap if you don't understand any of it. by my tally, that makes two people on this board who can invoke the laws of physics (beyond basic newtonian, that is) in an argument.

Endymion
05-21-2008, 06:56 PM
First off, in these kinds of discussions your definition of complexity means nothing because it's not relative to any other thing. This is because that in an infinitely proportioned universe where matter and energy exist in fluctuating quantities, every perspective can only be considered as mere speculation in an arbitrary basis. There's no objective degree of complexity.
too much bullshit in here. first off, complexity is objectively measured though can not be in general computed. second, this "every perspective can only blah blah blah arbitrary basis" doesn't actually mean anything.


Let's put it this way, living things may be very complex to us in first sight, but maybe in some other place and time there have existed beings more complex than us a hundredfold. We can't point out what's complex and what's not without a comparative basis.
again bullshit. there is an upper limit on complexity in general. there are also upper limits on the complexity of living beings in a given environment (eg earth, now).


It's a natural law. Nature creates order from chaos. From this, let's take your argument about the big bang into account. Let's say there's only 1 in a trillion of chance for a big bang to happen. It looks like impossible, doesn't it? However, the universe is infinite in time and space. If it didn't happen now, it will happen eventually, and the order will be created.
lots of bullshit again. the universe is finite in both size and age. nature is not a machine taking in 'chaos' and spitting out 'order'. since you (and by you and mean you, scythe) can't define either of those things, why do you even bother using them?

Scythe Death
05-21-2008, 08:10 PM
too much bullshit in here. first off, complexity is objectively measured though can not be in general computed. second, this "every perspective can only blah blah blah arbitrary basis" doesn't actually mean anything.
The same thing goes for everything. Saying something so very complex in the universe is parallel to saying something is very big in the universe when this one is infinite.



again bullshit. there is an upper limit on complexity in general. there are also upper limits on the complexity of living beings in a given environment (eg earth, now).
Hence I said "another place".



lots of bullshit again. the universe is finite in both size and age. nature is not a machine taking in 'chaos' and spitting out 'order'. since you (and by you and mean you, scythe) can't define either of those things, why do you even bother using them?
Are we talking about physical space or "mathematical space?" I know the Universe is a term used to describe the physical space (space with matter and all that). I'm trying to talk about existence as a whole. "If there are limits, what's beyond those limits?"

YOUR STRAW MAN IS ALSO SO FUN.




Make an argument, and teach us quantum physics.

IamSam
05-21-2008, 08:55 PM
Dogma: noun:
1. a system of principles or tenets
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Atheism: noun:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

According to you there is no dogma attached to atheism. However, the principle of atheism is dogma. Dogma handed down prescribing to the disbelief in God. It is a settled/established opinion based upon this fact.

So, based upon this, you are just as weak minded as the people you are currently attacking.

Pot, meet kettle.

I'd like to point out that you are still weak minded by your own word.

Scythe Death
05-21-2008, 09:06 PM
I'd like to point out that you are still weak minded by your own word.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

Here you go:

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

IamSam
05-21-2008, 09:29 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

Here you go:

dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.


Congrats. You still epically fail.

Endymion
05-21-2008, 10:08 PM
The same thing goes for everything. Saying something so very complex in the universe is parallel to saying something is very big in the universe when this one is infinite.
you misunderstand. you give me an object, i can give you a number which is its complexity. the universe doesn't matter. there are many ways to measure complexity objectively.




Hence I said "another place".
and again, there is a complete upper limit on the complexity of an object. after some point things stop becoming more complex and simply become more of the same. of course, this assumes the church-turing thesis.




Are we talking about physical space or "mathematical space?" I know the Universe is a term used to describe the physical space (space with matter and all that). I'm trying to talk about existence as a whole. "If there are limits, what's beyond those limits?"
given that i'm working on a phd in physics, i probably meant physical space. it's finite. those limits? there's nothing past them. they're called limits for a reason. and guess what, existence as a whole is this universe. we have nothing else.



YOUR STRAW MAN IS ALSO SO FUN.
and it wasn't a straw man. it is most definitely a point of argument to define your terms. do you know how to measure complexity, chaos, or order? i do, thus i know how to properly use them in arguments. you don't, so when you say "chaos to order" you mean absolutely nothing.


Make an argument, and teach us quantum physics.
teaching the board quantum mechanics is beyond the scope of the argument. spend six years in college studying and then come back to me. while you're at it, study complex systems too. you seem to rely on a lot of intuitive understanding regarding complexity which is simply wrong.

EMehl6
05-21-2008, 10:17 PM
Hey Endy, this is completely off topic, but I'm working on a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering right now, and I just saw that you said you're working on a PhD in physics... So I'm assuming you're pretty much a genius when it comes to math and physics... Would you be willing to help me out if I have some problems with physics/math related stuff in my classes? Thanks.

Scythe Death
05-21-2008, 10:19 PM
Congrats. You still epically fail.
Isn't it my point that things shouldn't be thought of as absolutely true?

Let me point something out. If you go back, I quoted:

"Atheist is agnostic, but in aggressive."

What it stands for is that nobody can completely prove that god does not exist. Religion is another thing, though. The belief in god and religion aren't necessarily synonymous. Religion follows a dogma, while agnosticism considers the possibility of an existing God or Gods unrelated to religion. In that quote, atheism is an opposition to religion.

Now let's say something about agnosticism. Agnosticism (as in the disbelief of religion, but consideration of a god) doesn't mean that you should consider the possibility of the existence of a God in 50/50. One can just be an agnostic and assert on the nonexistence of god and not completely an atheist because the world cannot be completely objective. Thinking that you should consider it as a 50/50 chance would be like considering the Tooth Fairy's possibility of existence as 50/50, you can't absolutely prove this one does not exist either, but you can be quite sure this one does not exist.

EMehl6
05-21-2008, 10:23 PM
Why do you care so much about what other people believe? I mean, it really has no effect on you. Unless of course you're being attacked by terrorists or bothered by Mormons at your door or whatever... But honestly, who cares? The world would suck if everyone believed the same stuff.

IamSam
05-21-2008, 10:39 PM
Isn't it my point that things shouldn't be thought of as absolutely true?

Let me point something out. If you go back, I quoted:

"Atheist is agnostic, but in aggressive."

What it stands for is that nobody can completely prove that god does not exist. Religion is another thing, though. The belief in god and religion aren't necessarily synonymous. Religion follows a dogma, while agnosticism considers the possibility of an existing God or Gods unrelated to religion. In that quote, atheism is an opposition to religion.

Now let's say something about agnosticism. Agnosticism (as in the disbelief of religion, but consideration of a god) doesn't mean that you should consider the possibility of the existence of a God in 50/50. One can just be an agnostic and assert on the nonexistence of god and not completely an atheist because the world cannot be completely objective. Thinking that you should consider it as a 50/50 chance would be like considering the Tooth Fairy's possibility of existence as 50/50, you can't absolutely prove this one does not exist either, but you can be quite sure this one does not exist.

You're still in a hole that you dug earlier when you misspoke and then attempted to cover it up with a shoddy online dictionary definition. Now you're changing subjects. Tacky.

Face it, you're beat, and better yet you did it to yourself.

Scythe Death
05-21-2008, 10:56 PM
you misunderstand. you give me an object, i can give you a number which is its complexity. the universe doesn't matter. there are many ways to measure complexity objectively.
So there is size. A meter is objective, but it's stupid to say it's small or big in the universe since it's infinite and infinitesimal. (But oh wait, we're getting to that.)





and again, there is a complete upper limit on the complexity of an object. after some point things stop becoming more complex and simply become more of the same. of course, this assumes the church-turing thesis.
Yeah.. I can't say this isn't true, but we're making a comparison. Wouldn't the upper limit be raised in other environments (perhaps in one we can't find on Earth).




given that i'm working on a phd in physics, i probably meant physical space. it's finite. those limits? there's nothing past them. they're called limits for a reason. and guess what, existence as a whole is this universe. we have nothing else.
Mathematical space would be beyond it. It'd be empty space without physical properties. Since the universe is everything, this is part of the universe.



and it wasn't a straw man. it is most definitely a point of argument to define your terms. do you know how to measure complexity, chaos, or order? i do, thus i know how to properly use them in arguments. you don't, so when you say "chaos to order" you mean absolutely nothing.
Ordo ab chaos. The old latin motto.

This is how it works. Take for example the big bang. Order represents the newly formed.. order.. while chaos is the process in which this one decays too give for a new order.

The big bang occurs, the universe is established, the universe eventually contracts, a new big bang occurs (although experts say that the universe is expanding in a way it'd be unable to contract).

This really applies itself into many natural things. Examples:

-Let's say.. Dinosaurs inhabit mainly the Earth (order), big meteorite crashes and kills all Dinosaurs. There's a huge imbalance with the living beings in earth (chaos). Some become extinct, some evolve, and eventually a new balance or order is naturally formed.

-There's a lot of Co2 in the atmosphere causing the greenhouse effect. Global Warming melts down polar caps. Polar caps fuck up the water currents. Changes of temperatures cause new ice age. Ice cover on Earth reflects sunlight, and fixes Co2 levels in the atmosphere and water levels. The Earth heals itself, and a new order is formed. Some planets will imminently go to waste, but eh.. They will eventually be completely destroyed, and there will eventually be new planets.

There goes some little philosophy to you.


teaching the board quantum mechanics is beyond the scope of the argument. spend six years in college studying and then come back to me. while you're at it, study complex systems too. you seem to rely on a lot of intuitive understanding regarding complexity which is simply wrong.

I'll try. I just said it so you could enlighten us when the chance came up.

Scythe Death
05-21-2008, 11:06 PM
You're still in a hole that you dug earlier when you misspoke and then attempted to cover it up with a shoddy online dictionary definition. Now you're changing subjects. Tacky.

Face it, you're beat, and better yet you did it to yourself.
Yeah, I may have misspoken, I guess. Maybe "dogma" wasn't the correct word. I don't see what's exactly wrong with it, I thought those definitions were accurate, and there were plenty of meanings, I guess it was up to you to choose which one I meant.

I meant dogmas as systems of beliefs that specifically considered to as absolute true by faith. Then you highlighted that part, implying that I was being hypocritical about my atheism, so I tried to clarify, or at least that's what I thought was happening.

If dogma is not the appropriate word, then please tell me what it is.

Llamas
05-21-2008, 11:40 PM
Isn't it my point that things shouldn't be thought of as absolutely true?

Let me point something out. If you go back, I quoted:

"Atheist is agnostic, but in aggressive."

What it stands for is that nobody can completely prove that god does not exist. Religion is another thing, though. The belief in god and religion aren't necessarily synonymous. Religion follows a dogma, while agnosticism considers the possibility of an existing God or Gods unrelated to religion. In that quote, atheism is an opposition to religion.

Now let's say something about agnosticism. Agnosticism (as in the disbelief of religion, but consideration of a god) doesn't mean that you should consider the possibility of the existence of a God in 50/50. One can just be an agnostic and assert on the nonexistence of god and not completely an atheist because the world cannot be completely objective. Thinking that you should consider it as a 50/50 chance would be like considering the Tooth Fairy's possibility of existence as 50/50, you can't absolutely prove this one does not exist either, but you can be quite sure this one does not exist.

You have no idea what agnosticism is. "Disbelief of religion, but consideration of god"... very few agnostics follow that. For instance, an agnostic can believe there's no true god or true religion, and yet not be atheist... because atheist means you have the belief that there's no god. a-theism. Without God. It's a belief system. Agnosticism is the only way a person could go without following any system.

If you say that you can be atheist and only be "quite sure" a god does not exist, you are being every bit as foolish as any of these religious folks you are bashing. Religious people are also often "quite sure" there is a god.

Never mind... this is silly. I just wanted to lol at your definition of "agnosticism".

Endymion
05-21-2008, 11:55 PM
So there is size. A meter is objective, but it's stupid to say it's small or big in the universe since it's infinite and infinitesimal. (But oh wait, we're getting to that.)





[QUOTE=Scythe Death;1115627]Yeah.. I can't say this isn't true, but we're making a comparison. Wouldn't the upper limit be raised in other environments (perhaps in one we can't find on Earth).
no, the upper limit is universal.


Mathematical space would be beyond it. It'd be empty space without physical properties. Since the universe is everything, this is part of the universe.
this is metaphysical crap. mathematical space is, at best, a concept, an idea. it has no physical manifestation. the universe is everything that there is. you really can't even say that there is nothing beyond it, because there is no beyond it.


The big bang occurs, the universe is established, the universe eventually contracts, a new big bang occurs (although experts say that the universe is expanding in a way it'd be unable to contract).
experts say? i ride the elevator every day with the guy who proved it. the universe isn't cyclic or static, that was einstein's pipe dream because he couldn't comprehend a universe without meaning.


-Let's say.. Dinosaurs inhabit mainly the Earth (order), big meteorite crashes and kills all Dinosaurs. There's a huge imbalance with the living beings in earth (chaos). Some become extinct, some evolve, and eventually a new balance or order is naturally formed.
why does the existence of dinosaurs imply order? there was no life on earth a few billion years ago. why is that not the 'order' state? there were no planets or stars a few billion years before that, why wouldn't you consider that order?


-There's a lot of Co2 in the atmosphere causing the greenhouse effect. Global Warming melts down polar caps. Polar caps fuck up the water currents. Changes of temperatures cause new ice age. Ice cover on Earth reflects sunlight, and fixes Co2 levels in the atmosphere and water levels. The Earth heals itself, and a new order is formed. Some planets will imminently go to waste, but eh.. They will eventually be completely destroyed, and there will eventually be new planets.

your 'law of nature' that things tend toward order directly contradicts the observed laws of nature, notably the second law of thermodynamics. if you're more at home with philosophy, fine, but why don't you stay there instead of trying to apply it to the physical world? your concept of progression toward 'order' firstly means nothing if you can't concretely define how to identify a state as being in line with 'order', and secondly flies in the face of all the laws of science and so would, if true, have to be imposed by an external, god-like force.

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 08:26 AM
You have no idea what agnosticism is. "Disbelief of religion, but consideration of god"... very few agnostics follow that. For instance, an agnostic can believe there's no true god or true religion, and yet not be atheist... because atheist means you have the belief that there's no god. a-theism. Without God. It's a belief system. Agnosticism is the only way a person could go without following any system.

If you say that you can be atheist and only be "quite sure" a god does not exist, you are being every bit as foolish as any of these religious folks you are bashing. Religious people are also often "quite sure" there is a god.

Never mind... this is silly. I just wanted to lol at your definition of "agnosticism".
*facepalm*
That's what I said. You didn't get it.

Atheist believe that there is absolutely no god. Agnostic people have consider the possibilities. I said you can an agnostic and be quite sure there's no god because it's like believing in the tooth fairy.

"Atheist is agnostic, but in aggressive" is quote by correspondence between Darwin and... crap I can't believe I forgot his name.... Marx's colleague.


Now for the good part:


this is metaphysical crap. mathematical space is, at best, a concept, an idea. it has no physical manifestation. the universe is everything that there is. you really can't even say that there is nothing beyond it, because there is no beyond it.
It's just space, hence the world is expanding.


experts say? i ride the elevator every day with the guy who proved it. the universe isn't cyclic or static, that was einstein's pipe dream because he couldn't comprehend a universe without meaning.
That's... nice.


why does the existence of dinosaurs imply order? there was no life on earth a few billion years ago. why is that not the 'order' state? there were no planets or stars a few billion years before that, why wouldn't you consider that order?
It's very subjective. It's just how nature fixes itself. That's just what "Ordo Ab Chaos" means.


your 'law of nature' that things tend toward order directly contradicts the observed laws of nature, notably the second law of thermodynamics. if you're more at home with philosophy, fine, but why don't you stay there instead of trying to apply it to the physical world? your concept of progression toward 'order' firstly means nothing if you can't concretely define how to identify a state as being in line with 'order', and secondly flies in the face of all the laws of science and so would, if true, have to be imposed by an external, god-like force.
Again, it's just very subjective and up for interpretation, not scientific. But yeah, you're right.


Well, now that that's been cleared and you're all involved in this conversation, what's your opinion on religion?

Endymion
05-22-2008, 09:35 AM
It's just space, hence the world is expanding.
that's the point -- the universe is getting bigger, but it's not expanding into anything. just getting bigger.


It's very subjective. It's just how nature fixes itself. That's just what "Ordo Ab Chaos" means.
the issue i take with this is how one can point to a condition and say it is in the 'fixed' state or the 'needs to be fixed' state. the universe has never been static, there's no equilibrium that it sits at, every once in a while being perturbed. things are always changing. or rather, they will be until entropy maximizes and the universe goes cold. at that point there are many possibilities since quantum effects won't decohere at the macroscopic scale... but anything at that point is purely speculative.


what's your opinion on religion?
i believe science is a matter of logic and religion is a matter of faith. the only thing i take issue with regarding religion is those people how believe the bible et al is a literal text about the history of the world rather than a set of parables acting as a moral guide.

in short, if someone is religious and they believe that god can be seen in the beauty that surrounds us, the elegance of the laws that govern our universe, etc -- no problem. if they're religious and believe that the universe popped into existence 6000 years ago with adam and eve -- i'll ignore them.

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2008, 10:25 AM
Endy in this thread has given me a raging stiffy.

IamSam
05-22-2008, 10:35 AM
If dogma is not the appropriate word, then please tell me what it is.

Religious constraints would have worked better than dogma.

wheelchairman
05-22-2008, 11:01 AM
Endy in this thread has given me a raging stiffy.

Yeah me too.

It's also super cool that he's doing a doctorate.

Endymion
05-22-2008, 11:43 AM
Yeah me too.

It's also super cool that he's doing a doctorate.

i'm not the only one. our lovely betty's working on one in physical chemistry.

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 01:32 PM
Well, Endymion definitely has my respect... but what about the rest of you?

IamSam
05-22-2008, 02:46 PM
Well, Endymion definitely has my respect... but what about the rest of you?

Your respect is something we don't want.

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 02:58 PM
Your respect is something we don't want.

It's not like if you could gain it either.

Nobody in this thread with the exception of Endymion gave an actual argument. Even then, Endymion just wanted to pan me in physics.

The rest of you were an utter waste and just posted about how much you hate me without an actual argument, which was pretty pathetic.

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2008, 03:01 PM
The rest of you were an utter waste and just posted about how much you hate me without an actual argument, which was pretty pathetic.

Sorry, the rest of us do not posess Endy's saint-like patience.

Llamas
05-22-2008, 03:18 PM
Most of us can't stand debating stupid shit with ignorant people. I personally can't stand arguing in general, and it's only worsened when it's with idiots.

Endy just somehow is able to carry through proving you wrong without being so incredibly annoyed by you that he has to just leave. <3 Endy.

IamSam
05-22-2008, 03:24 PM
It's not like if you could gain it either.

Nobody in this thread with the exception of Endymion gave an actual argument. Even then, Endymion just wanted to pan me in physics.

The rest of you were an utter waste and just posted about how much you hate me without an actual argument, which was pretty pathetic.

I don't waste my time on the likes of you unless you make a grammatical error, which you did. I didn't want to argue with you because arguing with the likes of you is like talking to pond scum.

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 03:37 PM
Most of us can't stand debating stupid shit with ignorant people. I personally can't stand arguing in general, and it's only worsened when it's with idiots.

Endy just somehow is able to carry through proving you wrong without being so incredibly annoyed by you that he has to just leave. <3 Endy.

I know what you're capable of, so you're only fooling yourself. Even then, Endy only talked about physics, and he criticized "religious constraints." My point still stands..

Sunny
05-22-2008, 06:13 PM
hey endy, wanna make out? ;* ;*

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 08:40 PM
hey endy, wanna make out? ;* ;*

BUT AREN'T BOTH OF YOU GUYS?

Sunny
05-22-2008, 08:44 PM
uhhhh.... what?

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 08:58 PM
uhhhh.... what?

ARE YOU HOMOSEXUAL?

Sunny
05-22-2008, 09:00 PM
which team i play for is irrelevant. has it not occurred to you that 1) the person in my avatar is female 2) my user tag is "flower of the east" and 3) my signature is a mae west quote in pink italics?

your powers of deduction, i weep for them.

EMehl6
05-22-2008, 09:07 PM
Ohhhh!!! Sunny and Endy sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

Aww, come on, I had to do it...

And yes, we've all come to realize Scythe Death is an idiot. Welcome to the club.

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 09:37 PM
which team i play for is irrelevant. has it not occurred to you that 1) the person in my avatar is female 2) my user tag is "flower of the east" and 3) my signature is a mae west quote in pink italics?

your powers of deduction, i weep for them.

That actually makes you look more like a trap. Women in the internet don't usually don't act like whores so deliberately. You act like if you had never seen a trap.

Llamas
05-22-2008, 09:42 PM
which team i play for is irrelevant. has it not occurred to you that 1) the person in my avatar is female 2) my user tag is "flower of the east" and 3) my signature is a mae west quote in pink italics?

your powers of deduction, i weep for them.

Or you're a really really femmy gay guy with long hair. :)

Scythe, why does it matter anyway? Why would it matter if Sunny and Endy were both guys?

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 09:45 PM
Or you're a really really femmy gay guy with long hair. :)

Scythe, why does it matter anyway? Why would it matter if Sunny and Endy were both guys?

Because guys like girls, silly.

Cock Joke
05-22-2008, 09:49 PM
Atheism, outer space, homosexuality.

This gets thread of the year already!

Llamas
05-22-2008, 09:53 PM
Because guys like girls, silly.

Ah, further establishing your trolling intentions. Good one.

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 09:57 PM
Ah, further establishing your trolling intentions. Good one.
Well, didn't you guys decide already that you're too good (although I already know how you "debate") for this thread anyways?

Llamas
05-22-2008, 10:14 PM
Nope, I just said that I'm too good to debate with a troll. :)

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2008, 10:15 PM
You know what, everyone does deserve a second chance. So how's this. Though this topic set off the troll alarm, I would personally like to see you contribute more to other parts of this forum. Whichever ones you choose. Lay off the forced "debates" on religion for a second and just talk.

Sunny
05-22-2008, 11:26 PM
That actually makes you look more like a trap. Women in the internet don't usually don't act like whores so deliberately.

i would really love to hear more about my alleged whoredom and how it makes my e-presence seem like an elaborate "trap". please, do go on, this is fucking hysterical.

Endymion
05-23-2008, 12:12 AM
sunny, i can't tell you how long i've waited for you to ask me that.

also, i've totally tongued this guy:
http://a503.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/97/l_53cd7ba943df74501630ca2c03f95b5e.jpg

Moose
05-23-2008, 12:53 AM
I'm not saying that religious people are stupid, I mean that religion is for the weak minded in the way that it is an escapism for death among many things. Even if he was a Catholic Priest, the big bang theory basically goes the fundamentals of his religion.

There's been Priests that have written books as to why God doesn't exist.


Religion is not always an escape. There are many artist and philosophers; musicians, painters, and otherwise, that have been pained by religion, or at least the belief in God and other spiritual things.

To compare religion to an addict escaping life through his addiction is a little on the wrong side.

One can also say people reject God, or the idea of religion, or heaven and hell, because it is a lot easier to reject and hate, or simply deny the existence of a possible punishment for all of our wrong doing on earth. Or deny something that may be totally out of one's control.

It can be quite a scary possibility that we are all in a sense doomed because we commit sin on a daily basis.

However, no matter what people believe, people shouldn't be condemning Einstein and calling him an idiot because he doesn't believe in organized religion. He never denied the possibility of God or of a higher existence, so I don't really understand why they would be so upset.

Vera
05-23-2008, 01:34 AM
which team i play for is irrelevant. has it not occurred to you that 1) the person in my avatar is female 2) my user tag is "flower of the east" and 3) my signature is a mae west quote in pink italics?

your powers of deduction, i weep for them.

Yeah, well, Endymion has a penis in his butt that says different. so thar!111

Seriously, though, this thread just took a turn to the fucking hilarious. Women on the interwebs is a lie? What. Just ..what?

I'm with 1565, though.

HeadAroundU
05-24-2008, 08:52 AM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/HeadAroundU/unorris.jpg

Scythe Death
05-24-2008, 01:06 PM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/HeadAroundU/unorris.jpg

That graphic representation is all wrong. You suck.

Not Ozymandias
05-24-2008, 02:51 PM
I'm also willing to debate whether religion is actually detrimental to humanity.
But is anybody else?
<3


Also, what's your address? I have a copy of The God Delusion I need to get rid of, and I think you'd like it - the writer is also a douche.
<3


that makes two people on this board who can invoke the laws of physics (beyond basic newtonian, that is) in an argument.
*blushes*


YOUR STRAW MAN IS ALSO SO FUN
And people wonder why I think the invention of abortion was humanity's finest hour...

Philo Beddoe
06-20-2008, 03:53 PM
Question: why is it forbidden to criticize Einstein and to explain he was a fake?

Einstein, the Plagiarist
It is now time to speak directly to the issue of what Einstein was: he was first and foremost a plagiarist. He had few qualms about stealing the work of others and submitting it as his own. That this was deliberate seems obvious.

Take this passage from Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (there are no references to Poincaré here; just a few meaningless quotes). This is how page 101 reads: "'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'...is in many ways one of the most remarkable scientific papers that had ever been written. Even in form and style it was unusual, lacking the notes and references which give weight to most serious expositionsÉ" (emphasis added).

Why would Einstein, with his training as a patent clerk, not recognise the need to cite references in his article on special relativity? One would think that Einstein, as a neophyte, would overreference rather than underreference.

Wouldn't one also expect somewhat higher standards from an editor when faced with a long manuscript that had obviously not been credited? Apparently there was no attempt at quality control when it was published in Annalen der Physik. Most competent editors would have rejected the paper without even reading it. At the barest minimum, one would expect the editor to research the literature to determine whether Einstein's claim of primacy was correct.

Max Born stated, "The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature" (emphasis added) (Born, 1956). He is clearly indicating that the absence of references is abnormal and that, even by early 20th century standards, this is most peculiar, even unprofessional.

Einstein twisted and turned to avoid plagiarism charges, but these were transparent.

From Bjerknes (2002), we learn the following passage from James MacKaye: "Einstein's explanation is a dimensional disguise for Lorentz'sThus Einstein's theory is not a denial of, nor an alternative for, that of Lorentz. It is only a duplicate and disguise for itEinstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation'. Is it not clear, therefore, that in this [case], as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?"

Poincaré wrote 30 books and over 500 papers on philosophy, mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote on mathematics, physics and philosophy, but claimed he'd never read Poincaré's contributions to physics.

Yet many of Poincaré's ideas - for example, that the speed of light is a limit and that mass increases with speed - wound up in Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" without being credited.

Einstein's act of stealing almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré to write his document raised the bar for plagiarism. In the information age, this kind of plagiarism could never be perpetrated indefinitely, yet the physics community has still not set the record straight.

In his 1907 paper, Einstein spelled out his views on plagiarism: "It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature..."

With this statement, Einstein declared that plagiarism, suitably packaged, is an acceptable research tool.

Here is the definition of "to plagiarise" from an unimpeachable source, Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, p. 1,878: "To steal or purloin and pass off as one's own (the ideas, words, artistic productions, etc. of one another); to use without due credit the ideas, expressions or productions of another. To commit plagiarism" (emphasis added). Isn't this exactly what Einstein did?

Giving due credit involves two aspects: timeliness and appropriateness. Telling the world that Lorentz provided the basis for special relativity 30 years after the fact is not timely (see below), is not appropriate and is not giving due credit. Nothing Einstein wrote ex post facto with respect to Lorentz's contributions alters the fundamental act of plagiarism.

The true nature of Einstein's plagiarism is set forth in his 1935 paper, "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy", where, in a discussion on Maxwell, he wrote, "The question as to the independence of those relations is a natural one because the Lorentz transformation, the real basis of special relativity theory..." (emphasis added).

So, Einstein even acknowledged that the Lorentz transformation was the real basis of his 1905 paper. Anyone who doubts that he was a plagiarist should ask one simple question: "What did Einstein know and when did he know it?" Einstein got away with premeditated plagiarism, not the incidental plagiarism that is ubiquitous (Moody, 2001).

The History of E = mc2
Who originated the concept of matter being transformed into energy and vice versa? It dates back at least to Sir Isaac Newton (1704). Brown (1967) made the following statement: "Thus gradually arose the formula E = mc2, suggested without general proof by Poincaré in 1900".

One thing we can say with certainty is that Einstein did not originate the equation E = mc2.

Philo Beddoe
06-20-2008, 03:56 PM
Then the question becomes: "Who did?"

Bjerknes (2002) suggested as a possible candidate S. Tolver Preston, who "formulated atomic energy, the atom bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870s, based on the formula E = mc2".

In addition to Preston, a major player in the history of E = mc2 who deserves a lot of credit is Olinto De Pretto (1904). What makes this timing so suspicious is that Einstein was fluent in Italian, he was reviewing papers written by Italian physicists and his best friend was Michele Besso, a Swiss Italian. Clearly, Einstein (1905b) would have had access to the literature and the competence to read it. In "Einstein's E = mc2 'was Italian's idea'" (Carroll, 1999), we see clear evidence that De Pretto was ahead of Einstein in terms of the formula E = mc2.

In terms of his understanding the vast amount of energy that could be released with a small amount of mass, Preston (1875) can be credited with knowing this before Einstein was born. Clearly, Preston was using the E = mc2 formula in his work, because the value he determined - e.g., that one grain could lift a 100,000-ton object up to a height of 1.9 miles - yields the equation E = mc2.

According to Ives (1952), the derivation Einstein attempted of the formula E = mc2 was fatally flawed because Einstein set out to prove what he assumed. This is similar to the careless handling of the equations for radioactive decay which Einstein derived. It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero types. Occam's razor rules here.

The Eclipse of 1919
There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to "Einstein's" work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse.

What makes the expeditions to Sobral and Principe so suspect is Eddington's zealous support of Einstein, as can be seen in his statement, "By standing foremost in testing, and ultimately verifying the 'enemy' theory, our national observatory kept alive the finest traditions of science..." (emphasis added) (Clark, 1984). In this instance, apparently Eddington was not familiar with the basic tenets of science. His job was to collect data - not verify Einstein's theories.

Further evidence for the fraud can be deduced from Eddington's own statements and the introduction to them provided by Clark (ibid., p. 285): "May 29 began with heavy rain, which stopped only about noon. Not until 1.30 pm when the eclipse had already begun did the party get its first glimpse of the sun: 'We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith...'" (emphasis added). Eddington reveals his true prejudice: he was willing to do anything to see that Einstein was proved right. But Eddington was not to be deterred: "It looked as though the effort, so far as the Principe expedition was concerned, might have been abortive"; "We developed the photographs, two each night for six nights after the eclipseThe cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended; consequently I have not been able to make any preliminary announcement of the result" (emphasis added) (Clark, ibid.).

Actually, Eddington's words speak volumes about the result. As soon as he found one shred of evidence that was consistent with "Einstein's" general relativity theory, he immediately proclaimed it as proof of the theory. Is this science?

Where were the astronomers when Eddington presented his findings? Did anyone besides Eddington actually look at the photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical scientist.

Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light"; "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theoryÉ" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930).

From Brown (1967), we learn that Eddington couldn't wait to get it out to the world community that Einstein's theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did "appear" to bend as they should, as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity.

The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were discarded from the South American eclipse due to "accidental error", i.e., it contradicted Einstein's scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the "good" data were consistent with Einstein's scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einstein's theories conveniently got temporarily shelved - and the myth began.

So, based on a handful of ambiguous data points, 200 years of theory, experimentation and observation were cast aside to make room for Einstein. Yet the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by Stephen Hawking (1999). It is difficult to comprehend how Hawking could comment that "The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativityIt was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct evidence that space and time were warped". Does Hawking honestly believe that a handful of data points, massaged more thoroughly than a side of Kobe beef, constitutes the basis for overthrowing a paradigm that had survived over two centuries of acid scrutiny?

The real question, though, is: "Where was Einstein in all this?" Surely, by the time he wrote his 1935 paper, he must have known of the work of Poor: "The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun". Why didn't he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? Why haven't the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919?

What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise.

McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox: "They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of lightÉ"; "What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate"; "In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein's enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought" (emphasis added).

It is clear that from the outset Eddington was in no way interested in testing "Einstein's" theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington's decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington's glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only one question: "Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?" This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the "enemy" theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.


It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.

Philo Beddoe
06-20-2008, 03:57 PM
Summary and Conclusions
The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate defenders of ethics, that scientific rigour is the measure of truth. Little do people realise how science is conducted in the presence of personality.

It seems that Einstein believed he was above scientific protocol. He thought he could bend the rules to his own liking and get away with it; hang in there long enough and his enemies would die off and his followers would win the day. In science, the last follower standing wins - and gets to write history. In the case of Einstein, his blatant and repeated dalliance with plagiarism is all but forgotten and his followers have borrowed repeatedly from the discoveries of other scientists and used them to adorn Einstein's halo.

Einstein's reputation is supported by a three-legged stool. One leg is Einstein's alleged plagiarism. Was he a plagiarist? The second leg is the physics community. What did they know about Einstein and when did they know it? The third leg is the media. Are they instruments of truth or deception when it comes to Einstein? Only time will tell.

The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein's physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if only one leg is sawed off, the stool collapses. There are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.

Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science fall?


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

jacknife737
06-20-2008, 04:02 PM
tl; dr 10 characters

Endymion
06-20-2008, 04:26 PM
stuff about einstein stealing equations

no one gives credit to einstein for lorentz contractions. einsteins only real contributions were that a) the speed of light is constant for all observers, and b) that space and time are two aspects of the same thing. that's it. oh, and using atomic theory to explain brownian motion.


It turns out that Einstein mixed kinematics and mechanics, and out popped the neutrino. The neutrino may be a mythical particle accidentally created by Einstein (Carezani, 1999). We have two choices with respect to neutrinos: there are at least 40 different types or there are zero types. Occam's razor rules here.

there are three types of neutrinos. three. exactly. only. they've been detected. and einstein had nothing to do with them, pauli predicted them. also, there's nothing wrong with "mixing" kinematics and mechanics. kinematics is just one particular aspect of mechanics.

as for all the random stuff about the eclipse -- who cares? GR has been proven a million times over in hundreds of thousands of different ways. GPS relies on it. satellite TV uses it all the time.


The physics community is also supported by a three-legged stool. The first leg is Einstein's physics. The second leg is cold fusion. The third leg is autodynamics. The overriding problem with a three-legged stool is that if only one leg is sawed off, the stool collapses. There are at least three very serious disciplines where it is predictable that physics may collapse.

Science is a multi-legged stool. One leg is physics; a second leg is the earth sciences; a third, biology; and a fourth, chemistry (e.g., cold fusion). What will happen if, for the sake of argument, physics collapses? Will science fall?

a) cold fusion doesn't exist. b) autodynamics isn't science. c) cold fusion -- if it did exist -- would be physics not chemistry. science isn't well differentiated into four distinct categories.

your copy/pasta was both ill-tasting and factually incorrect.

Philo Beddoe
06-20-2008, 07:15 PM
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm
We can stick with Einstein being a fake. And your PhD in physics is from where?

Endymion
06-20-2008, 08:09 PM
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm
We can stick with Einstein being a fake. And your PhD in physics is from where?

i don't have it yet. it is in progress at uc davis.

Philo Beddoe
06-20-2008, 08:27 PM
i don't have it yet. it is in progress at uc davis. I'll congatulate you then. If you completed your dissertation on Einstein's plagiarism, would it be a blasphemous sin in the physics world? Would your committee refuse to approve your work?

Vera
06-21-2008, 01:17 AM
Maybe he wouldn't do his thesis on Einstein's plagiarism because it, y'know, isn't based on sufficient scientific evidence?

Philo Beddoe
06-21-2008, 07:13 AM
Maybe he wouldn't do his thesis on Einstein's plagiarism because it, y'know, isn't based on sufficient scientific evidence?Einstein was labeled a dunce and was too stupid to make it through college. he gets a job in a patent office of all places, marries a degreed scientist, and then all of a sudden comes up with a new 'theory'. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm

The Talking Pie
06-21-2008, 08:38 AM
I agree; if Einstein was such a genius, he would have discovered the concept of the TIME-CUBE (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=clnk&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2F66.102.9.104%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache %3ARsk_yKeURBYJ%3Awww.timecube.com%2F%2BTime%2BCub e%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26cd%3D4%26gl%3Duk&ei=IxFdSK2eEJb00ASOmNj-Cw&usg=AFQjCNGJp0eIfzyRrV3E4Sny-L05Iw9b6A&sig2=IdRfPvj8ndHfYDaeuymg_w)!

Apologies for Google cache link ; main site seems to be down...

Little_Miss_1565
06-21-2008, 08:47 AM
Philo, your ranting against Einstein is predicated on the idea that it is somehow 'forbidden' to speak against him. I think Endymion has proven this is not the case. Why do you think that insulting Einstein would somehow get people here wound up?



your copy/pasta was both ill-tasting and factually incorrect.

Bear my children.

Philo Beddoe
06-21-2008, 01:51 PM
Philo, your ranting against Einstein is predicated on the idea that it is somehow 'forbidden' to speak against him. I think Endymion has proven this is not the case. Why do you think that insulting Einstein would somehow get people here wound up? Einstein is a political figure, and a false demigod.



Bear my children. Shouldn't we get to know each other first? I don't think you have been in academia enough to know that you must obey the liberal mantra to attain a masters or doctorate degree.

sipptaroowsky
06-21-2008, 03:46 PM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/HeadAroundU/unorris.jpg

aaaaaaaaaahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha, now that's a God worth beleaving in, 'cous if you don't ...in the eyes of the ranger, the unsespected stranger, you better know the truth from wrong and right, cous the eyes of the ranger on a barbecue, 'cous any kind of prick can do the trick, when you're in texas look the barbeque, 'cous that's where the eye's gonna be,,,,PSHCHHHHHH

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9388/chuckjesusuu1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9388/chuckjesusuu1.78f4581981.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=78&i=chuckjesusuu1.jpg)