-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Liberals are...smarter!
- Thread starter hakr100
- Start date
tommy_ed
Android Expert
HAHAHA this is hilarious. This statement pretty much confirms the results of the study mentioned by the OP.
tommy_ed
Android Expert
Just for laughs:
Atheist are known to spontaneously combust when in contact with an anti-atheist. This explosion will in turn create an unlimited source of energy. Anti-atheists (known as theists)have offered to sacrifice themselves for finding unlimited energy and benefiting the world. However the search for an atheist whose head is not jammed up his ass and actually believes that there are things in this reality that are more important than their petty, unproductive lives is still on. People have not found such an atheist even until today, they are thought to be nonexistent. But in the end, yes, an atheist created the Universe as we know it.
Thats my theory.
Atheism - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
^^ that's the link to the site he copy/pasted "his theory" from
WAdude
Android Enthusiast
Yeah, thats what the technology (copy pasting) is for.
tommy_ed
Android Expert
my point is you can't seem to come up with any information on your own. I have read this entire thread and you have progressively made yourself look worse and worse. And now it's to the point where anyone who has viewed this will take any info from you with a grain of salt. Your answers are vague and often answered with other questions. No, I don't think your age has TOO much to do with it, but when you said "ya'lls" things started making a little more sense. No, we can't prove that god isn't real, just like you can't prove he is. And we can't prove the big bang theory. But we have a HELL OF A LOT more evidence supporting our theory. I'm sorry but some guy shitting out a world complete with all the things that are in it in 7 days is not cutting it for me. And don't forget that bible you follow was written by normal joes just like you and me, not god.
I could go through this whole thing and quote about 20 stupid things you have said, but i don't think there is a need to. Plus MPW seems to repeatedly grease you anyways. Sorry man, but you need to get your facts straight before you start running your mouth off.
and one more thing... dinosaurs. dont you think if humans were alive with dinosaurs there would be some cave paintings or something about a HUGE ASS LIZARD TRYING TO EAT THEM??!!!! and speaking of historical record, don't you think it's funny that no historian during the period of christ recorded his existence? you would think walking on water, healing the sick, and turning water into wine would be noteworthy.
-peace
zep
Member
Assuming you weren't deliberately trying to plagiarize someone, I think what you meant to say was something along the lines of "That's the theory I subscribe to" instead of "that's my theory". It's not yours, it belongs to whoever wrote it. Agreeing with an idea doesn't make it your idea.
That's what standards (citing your sources) are for.
WAdude
Android Enthusiast
Wow, thats great. I havent said shit about dinosaurs, and anyways, is evidence what you need for a god, cause you should know that science and religion dont go together. Natural is to science as supernatural is to God. And "yall", thats cause Im from the east coast, what, doeas that mean Im stupid. I cant come up with information because there is no proof of god, but there are things to support it. That maybe you cant understand.
tommy_ed
Android Expert
no you havent (said anything about dinosaurs), but your religion has. so now are you saying you don't beleive it? and what things are there to support it? I mean other than "my granny says we all go up and live with jaysus when we die" or "look at the sun and the trees all around us" i mean ANY kind of evidence that could actually be used as factual support to a theory. And you still didn't answer my question, why didn't ANYTHING other than the bible mention jesus? You don't think someone coming back to life after dying, and floating through the air back into heaven, any of that would be worth mentioning?
WAdude
Android Enthusiast
Look, honestly I dont know. Go read my last post on the Judeo Christian Moral thread, and try answering that though.
http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/155533-judeo-christian-moral-standard-3.html
tommy_ed
Android Expert
Thanks for admitting that, you've pretty much debunked your own theory there. Because science actually has factual evidence that dinosaurs did NOT live amongst humans, that would be why you don't know. I read your post, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be answering? I can however ask you a question in the meantime... you say with the big bang theory there is no beginning to the story? same with yours. Who made god? And "i am what i am" is not an answer btw. Get back to me on the question I'm supposed to be answering, and I'll be sure to respond with something thats NOT copied from someone else's work.
Atheist: "We believe that all objects in the Universe have ALWAYS been in motion. (An impossibility based upon the laws of physics as we currently understand them)"
Religion: "We believe something set the universe in motion"
Everyone here thinks they're a physicist and quotes random articles regarding "science." Most of the top-tier scientists still maintain there is a lot that is unexplained. Hmm.. Kinda reminds you of religion, doesn't it? Holes in theories?
Unless you are a respectable scientist, you should not be quoting articles from the internet. The real brainy ones don't have time for that, and what they know has not truly been revealed to the public yet.
Unless you are a respectable scientist, you should not be quoting articles from the internet. The real brainy ones don't have time for that, and what they know has not truly been revealed to the public yet.
Isthmus
Android Expert
True, but those same scientists don't go around saying that just because they don't know that we can't understand any more or that the answers are all understood. That little bit of arrogance is the domain of most religions. Science might have hole sin theories, but at least they acknowledge as much and actively look for answers. Religion pretty much has given up on that.
Well, obviously, your knowledge of religion is quite limited. So, we'll educate you a bit. Most religions will bluntly tell you that there are things that we just don't know, about God, about the world, about everything.
Well, obviously, your knowledge of the realm of scientific study is quite limited. So, we'll educate you a bit. Most scientists enter research with a preconceived conclusion. This taints their research and their studies. The best studies tend to be double blind, where an individual scientists beliefs cannot interfere with the outcome.
I read a study that attempted to disprove the theory that cosmic rays are involved in Global Warming. The theory acknowledged that the cloud formation around the Globe is consistent with the theory, but that cloud cover didn't change within an hour of variation in cosmic ray levels. Because cloud cover didn't change within that time frame, they concluded that cloud formation wasn't effected by cosmic ray levels. However, it is easily determined that since cosmic ray levels wouldn't be the ONLY component for cloud formation that clouds would not form quickly without other factors falling in line as well.
However, these scientists reached their conclusion because that was what they believed when they started.
tommy_ed
Android Expert
I'm assuming this has to be directed towards WAdude. And btw, i doubt any respectable scientist would have to quote articles on the internet to make his/her point.
Isthmus
Android Expert
Not sure why you are coming off with the snarky attitude when none has been given to you, but lets see if we can reply.
Come on, lets not leave out the part that scientific studies are subject to peer review and retesting before they are generally accepted. You are right that scientists, as all humans, have a confirmation bias when researching a subject. That is why others are supposed to independently review and retest the data, replicate experiments and draw independent conclusions.
Don't forget the other side of that coin though. Throughout much of western and middle eastern history, that acknowledgment that there are things we don't know has often been followed with a strong "suggestion" from religious authorities not to pursue the issue. This is less so today than it once was, but I don't know that it is because religion as a whole has become any more tolerant, kinder or gentler. These are general comments of course and I completely understand that there are and have been varying degrees of tolerance (or lack thereof) among different groups, in different places and at different points in time.
Come on, lets not leave out the part that scientific studies are subject to peer review and retesting before they are generally accepted. You are right that scientists, as all humans, have a confirmation bias when researching a subject. That is why others are supposed to independently review and retest the data, replicate experiments and draw independent conclusions.
I was talking to everyone in here that thinks they have it all figured out using science articles from the internet. Not any one member in particular.
And no, they wouldn't, because someone of their caliber wrote said article.
RAND0M1ZER
Member
3 Points I would like to make:
1. The Bible was undeniable written by man.
2. Not every complex scientific hypothesis can be explained using analogies understandable by people with no education in the subject.
3. If you have strong disagreements about the content of the Bible than you are not a Christian since that book is the sole basis of the religion. This does not mean you cannot believe in a higher-power.
And ya, WAdude don't plagiarize articles. At the very least it allows the people reading you comment to get more detail if they don't understand your quotation.
1. The Bible was undeniable written by man.
2. Not every complex scientific hypothesis can be explained using analogies understandable by people with no education in the subject.
3. If you have strong disagreements about the content of the Bible than you are not a Christian since that book is the sole basis of the religion. This does not mean you cannot believe in a higher-power.
And ya, WAdude don't plagiarize articles. At the very least it allows the people reading you comment to get more detail if they don't understand your quotation.
I apologize. I generally take offense at people treating religious people as if they are imbecilic cavemen who just haven't realized what they don't know yet.
And scientists used to consist of witch doctors, and throwing theories out that were easily proven wrong.
I hope you aren't putting your faith in the peer review process. Lost of science has been peer reviewed and proven wrong.
Isthmus
Android Expert
My apologies for any offense. That said, if you read my prior replies, you'll see that I clearly stated that my goal was not to talk down to WAdude about his beliefs, but to criticize his discussion skills. More specifically I tried to point out the need for backing up opinions with related verifiable sources, regardless of the topic being discussed. Instead he ignored that and... Well you've read the thread. My intent was not to ridicule religious people, even if I don't see eye to eye with every point, to each his own I say.
Lets be fair, that's not really accurate. Though it is true that what passed for science (especially in medicine and biology) a few hundred years ago could hardly be called that today. Still, it's unfair to equate early practices with modern techniques as if they were the same. understanding has taken time and lots and lots of practice.
Absolutely I have. while what you say is true, it is that very same peer review process, coupled with further experimentation and new information and techniques discovered from a variety of different fields that ultimately proves early assumption's correct, incorrect or at least contributes to clarification and greater understanding. I'm not saying that the results are correct every time, but the process is sound and intentionally left open to periodic review. So yes, I do believe the process has very strong merit.
Yeah, I responded to earlier posts. I couldn't read all the way through this discussion.
The same is true of religion's view of science.
It is the best we've got. The biases of the peers reviewing the material cannot be accounted for, unfortunately.
Isthmus
Android Expert
Yes, but that's why we have lots of peers and why the process remains open to periodic review over time as new information and techniques are discovered.
Yes, but it makes challenging accepted paradigms very difficult. Neither Darwin, nor Gallileo would have survived the peer review process.
Eventually, yeah, people would have realized, slowly, that they were right, but not for a long time.
hakr100
Android Expert
i only think they are "imbecilic cavemen" when they try to pass off their religious beliefs as based upon anything more than their faith, and when they try to shove their religious beliefs onto my non-religious society.
DaSchmarotzer
Blame it on me
I won't hop in the middle of your debates, but I'll just state that I don't understand religion.
In science, everything remains a theory unless it has been proven right. Then again, scientists might discover it wasn't exactly right when they understand those phenomenons better (usually years later).
Let's take the Egyptian religion for example. They had a theory about Gods moving the Sun though the sky, thus explaining day and night. It was an honest theory, for they had no understanding of the phenomenon. It was then discovered that the Earth is rotating around the Sun.
What I don't understand is that people couldn't admit that they were wrong and still continued to blindly believe in the Solar deity.
Anyway, that was just an example, you get my point. Please stay civil in your discussions.
In science, everything remains a theory unless it has been proven right. Then again, scientists might discover it wasn't exactly right when they understand those phenomenons better (usually years later).
Let's take the Egyptian religion for example. They had a theory about Gods moving the Sun though the sky, thus explaining day and night. It was an honest theory, for they had no understanding of the phenomenon. It was then discovered that the Earth is rotating around the Sun.
What I don't understand is that people couldn't admit that they were wrong and still continued to blindly believe in the Solar deity.
Anyway, that was just an example, you get my point. Please stay civil in your discussions.