Perry, you have not 'demonstrated', you have just said the same thing over and over, and seem to think that this is demonstration. You have proved nothing. Do you need a flashlight or a proctologist to help you realise this?”
My dear friend Abaddon, one must admire persistence; even if it is fruitless. My challenge has been unanswered. You have not answered it and neither has anyone else. Kinda like the JW’s who keep asserting “truth” and can’t prove it. Pulling answers out of places that require a flashlight and a warped sense of humor isn’t very scientific, although you get an A+ as the board Jester.
“You state "They have no idea how the cosmos got here. Right?"
Wrong. They have very good ideas on how the cosmos got here. Not proof. But as neither you or I can understand the mathematics used to explain the early development of the Universe, and how a singularity could arise, I suppose it is fair for me to accept your insistance that they are wrong is as ignorant as my insistance that their theories provide an adequate explaination of origins - more accurate than anything provided by theists as a whole at any rate.”
I see you’ve been boning up on Quantum Theory, excellent! You must have surely read about Albert Einstein’s critique of it. Here it is in a nut shell:
The first thing to notice is that Einstein was not trying to disprove Quantum Mechanics in any way. In fact, he was well aware of its power to predict the outcomes of various experiments. What he was trying to show was that Quantum Mechanics could not be a complete theory of nature and that some other theory would have to be invoked in order to fully describe nature.
The argument begins by assuming that there are two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles), whose wave functions are known. Then, if A and B interact for a short period of time, one can determine the wavefunction which results after this interaction via the Schroedinger equation or some other Quantum Mechanical equation of state. Now, let us assume that A and B move far apart, so far apart that they can no longer interact in any fashion. In other words, A and B have moved outside of each others light cones and are therefore spacelike separated.
With this situation in mind, Einstein asked the question: what happens if one makes a measurement on system A? Say, for example, one measures the momentum value for system A. Then, using the conservation of momentum and our knowledge of the system before the interaction, one can infer the momentum of system B. Thus, by making a momentum measurement of A, one can also measure the momentum of B. Recall now that A and B are spacelike separated, and thus they can not communicate in any way. This separation means that B must have had the inferred value of momentum not only in the instant after one makes a measurement at A, but also in the few moments before the measurement was made. If,on the other hand, it were the case that the measurement at A had somehow caused B to enter into a particular momentum state, then there would need to be a way for A to signal B and tell it that a measurement took place. But, the two systems cannot communicate in any way!
If one examines the wave function at the moment just before the measurement at A is made, one finds that there is no certainty as to the momentum of B because the combined system is in a superposition of multiple momentum eigenstates of A and B. So, even though system B must be in a definite state before the measurement at A takes place, the wavefunction description of this system can not tell us what that momentum is! Therefore, since system B has a definite momentum and since Quantum Mechanics cannot predict this momentum, Quantum Mechanics must be incomplete.
Now if you didn’t get all that, just do a search on your favorite engine on Quantum Theory and observe the paradoxes that many physicists have a problem with in attributing it as a complete theory of reality. Isn’t it funny how scientists without an agenda see major problems with its’ hop, skipping and jumping to philosophical implications promoted by some?
Two physicists are having a beer after a hard day at the laboratory. One says to the other, “Damnit Jim, did ya see how that particle got from point A to point B without an apparent path?” “Yes, amazing wasn’t it?”
Unbeknownst to them the friendly neighborhood Humanist overhears this while killing time before the Humanist meeting. Later, at the service, (do they still wear those furry hats with horns rotruding out the sides) he pronounces that “something from nothing is a scientific fact!”.
After word spreads to the right circles, another privately funded scientist `has a flash of scientific brilliance:: My new science paper will surely get me that grant from the Rockefeller Foundation!
Oh please, spare us. Your bias is simple astounding Abaddon….really.
So while you can state your opinion again and again that such things embrace supernaturalism, you haven't proved it to me, and to others. Equating a belief in a theory that can be proved, as far as is possible, with experiment, and can be taken back further theoretically, to a belief in a god with no proof is just dumb. There is no correlation in the type or level of belief.
Sillyness, people who thought the earth was flat also proved that theory as far as it was possible for them, usually walking over to their Aunt Beatrice’s’ house for apple pie.
It wasn’t until the WHOLE could be observed (by sailing around the world) that that theory was falsified.
Furthermore, I have never, ever (please find a post of mine that will falsify this statement) stated that it could be proven that God exists. To the contrary, what I have consistently challenged scientific religionists to do is to support their philosophical agenda that is firmly and irrevocably rooted in the “wholly” unnatural assumption that self existing matter without a cause occurs so as to qualify it as either (a) natural or (b) reproducible in a controlled environment. The failure to provide such evidence relegates the foundation for a whole slew of philosophies to the realm of the “supernatural” just as philosophies based on theism is also in the realm of the supernatural.
Abaddon, I want to thank you deeply for posting the things that you do with unerring devotion to your cause. Without that impetus, biased opinion might very well be passed off as fact. Again, thank you.
Now, for his own reasons, Perry is discussing how unfair it is that non-theists believe what they do and how hypocritical they are.
Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute. The first part is wholly untrue and the last part is totally true. The entire thrust of my argument is just how fair and equal it is for theists and non-theists to formulate a theory of reality (worldview). I have never, nor will you ever find any statement to the effect that I believe it unfair for non-theists to have an opinion. But, should a proclamation be presented as fact that is really just opinion, then in the pursuit of truth they should be rightly challenged. I totally support an environment where all voices are free as long as they don’t maliciously and knowingly lie.
Now for the second part of your statement: Could you make the same challenge to me concerning your statements about the censorship of theists’ ideas? If for example, a person were to review your posts, could it be said that you support such freedom of speech? Please don’t make me embarrass you and provide evidence of your apparent bias and hypocriticalness….which supports my characterization of the second part of your statement.
“He still hasn't addressed the point I made, regarding his lumping together of ideologially dissimilar groups in a way that allowed him to assert guilt by association, when the only association in the context he was addressing at the time was him putting them in a paragraph together.”
Never have I had the opportunity to extract such joy from a simple dialogue. It has to be obvious to an utmost degree that non-theist philosophies share a common denominator just as Theist ideologies do. That’s pretty self evident to most reasonable people.
Now, I do remember a theist religion that tried to claim vast difference from any other theist religion because of their opponents alleged bloodquilt with war etc., etc., etc. I think we all remember that one.
However, what is disturbing is how some non-theist ideologies do the exact same thing in trying so hard to distance themselves from other similar non-theist ideologies, especially ones that murdered tens of millions of citizens in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Could Lenin really have murdered 80 million people in the name of atheism?
Oh, I forgot; atheism cannot ever be guilty of harm because it only describes non belief. What utter credulity!
And then you attempt change my argument into something never even brought up:
Here, the fact that evolution is partilaly demonstrable and god is completely unprovable is conveniently ignored.
Yes, Abaddon continue to lie and distort. You are the only one who has brought up evolution. Congratulations, you are taking stupidity to new levels. Now can you answer my question on origins? Oh, I forgot you can’t. Just keep rambling Abaddon. I enjoy the comicalness of it all.
Does Perry want lessons where ALL world religons are taught in a non-biased way? Will that include Moonies and JW's? Who would decide which religions would be excluded?
My dear frothing atheist evangelist; wipe the drool from your face and listen carefully. Get a little closer so I can whisper this in your hear….just a little closer, I won’t hurt you. (((((((((((((AHHHHHH!))))))))))))
Did that wake you up? Good. Now try to pay attention. Education should be free of political and ideological agenda. Why are the atheists so afraid that if schools taught that some ideologies are based on the precept that the cosmos is self-existing? Why not teach it and mention the effects of those ideologies on our societies in the past such as Communism, Marxism, and Eubonics? Surely, you wouldn’t want to re-write history would you?
Likewise, a mention of the possibility of a “First Cause” with its subsequent ideologies could be mentioned as well along with its sometimes murderous effects from violating the law of love. Then, students can see the whole picture…..the good, bad , and the ugly. No, that is intolerable to the Humanist evangelist. I look forward to the day when such biased censorship will not plague our educational institutions.
Perry, religion is passed on by socialisation, so according to YOUR ARGUEMENT, to make religion an unalienable right, you need to prove it is genetic.
No society has ever been observed without a religion. Need I say more?
So Perry, what you gonna do? You gonna pass laws that outlaw shit eating? When it doesn't harm others? When it's someones' way to pursue happiness? Cause I can bet you, there are people who LOVE it. Who's being the totalitarian now Perry? Why is your opinion eating shit is bad relevant to other people?
Poor Abaddon, you do such a good job of making my arguments for me. People can do whatever they like in their own homes. If a person chooses to take his favorite turd out in public, then it becomes a public issue. The will of the majority has spoken on the issue of publically associating with turds. Oh, I forgot…the turd has rights too. Some people will never be satisfied until turds are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Your wholesale abandon of reason and mechanistic world you promote defies the imagination in absurdity.
Ah, so moving from whether homosexuality is right or wrong, you now talk about tax. Switch and bait. It's a seperate debate. Homosexuality and the use of tax dollars is not a unique linkage. ARGH!
That is nothing more than a lie. I have never made the statement that homosexuality is wrong. If behaviors are that are unpopular are sanctioned as equal in ideal to say hetero marriage then that has a direct impact where my tax dollars go. That is how democracy works. In a socialist state, I couldn’t care less.
God, I think I know why Canadians say 'eh' all the time. It's a natural response living so close to Perry!
You really know how to avoid an issue don’t you. Just attack the source. This kind of childishness is eclipsed only by your willingness to repeatedly contradict yourself and run like a scared philosopher with no one to proselytize. Poor baby. Here, have a cookie. All better now?
Oh, no doubt you will carry on about how censored the poor ickle right wingers are, what with their President being in power in the USA, that this Presidency has been the contunation (after the gap of the nton Adminstration) of an Oligarchy that has persisted since Reagan got into power, and most corporate dollars being controlled by people of right wing politics. Yes, very censored poor little right wingers. Awww. Didums.
I always love it when foreigners critique American politics and then start screaming “momma” when their little country gets invaded by the militant atheists or fundamental extremists. So, the tell tale thorn in your arse is where all the money goes right? Please go live in a communist country and report back to us with your quality of life in a place where all funds are distributed equally. While you go on your little utopian hunting trip the rest of us will continue to work hard to better our lives and try to minimize the role of government in our day to day lives.
But, to me you seem to miss the point that left wingers are just saying "If someone wants to do something, and it's not harmful, then they can", (other than an extremist fringe which you can bring into the conversation if can I bring the extremist right wing into the conversation).
Now, you finally say something that approaches the point of almost illustrating the real issue. Listen carefully folks.
Here is the fundamental difference between your illusionary utopian world and democracy. You would give politicians and scientists total authority over what constitutes harm. In a democracy, people want a say in the areas that have to do with opinion. You are promoting an Orwellian world where only “experts” decide what is harmful. Good luck with your freedom in such a system.
I also love the way you ignore that according to your logic, if the local people think it's okay, and the local moral code supports it, it would have been okay for that woman in Northern Nigeria to have been stoned to death for adultery if she'd been found guilty.
This statement illustrates the global agenda of the Humanists desire to rule the world. That my friend is their own damn business. What if they wanted to attack Amsterdam for ruining the lives of people through their legalization of drugs. You’d be screaming imperialism! Unfair!
If those people don’t like their governmental policies, they should rise up and make their govt. more responsive to their needs or sense of justice. Going around slapping smaller countries because you don’t like their policies is what Liberals are all about….like spoiled, loud mouthed little kids who think that they selfishly should tell the smaller kids how to play. It really is a sick existence.
just the same old bag of tricks.
Quick! Call a doctor, Abaddon is choking on those words.
And then you support religion being part of the democratic process.
Again, your bias against Theist ideology is very unbecoming. All ideas are important in a democracy, whether they are based on Theism or Non-Theism. You would simply throw this process out in favor of an oligarchy of politicians and scientific religionists. Orwell, would be impressed.
That's why I don't like 'playing' with you Perry.
Is there a doggie treat in my hand, or did I ask you to play with me?
I can certainly understand your feelings of inadequecy. Awww, poor baby. Someone has the audacity to make you responsible for the outlandish utopian statements you make and you don’t like it.
I do feel compelled to expose a bit of your hypocrisy, cry baby nature, and utopian non-sense.
Here’s a quick example:
On the Taliban Prisoners in Cuba:
seems very suspect keeping them of proper USA soil, as where they are they are out of sight, mind, or appeal by civil-rights factions.Whether that report is true or not, the US just scored a propoganda victory against itself.
Ah, I'm clear on this now; we can treat barbarians like barbarians without becoming barbarians ourselves...
hahahahahahahahahaha!
I’m sure you could just put them up at your house and offer them some milk and cookies. Then have a nice discussion about how naughty they have been? And then after dozens of answers to your question of human rights, you simply scream and shout:
WOULD SOMEONE IN FAVOUR OF HOLDING TALIBAN/AL-QUAEDA PRISONERS IN CUBA PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!
Abaddon, several posters have noticed your tendency to repeat yourself and claim no one is replying to your issues. Instead, what really happens is that you don’t like the answers people give you. Then, you simply repeat your questions no matter how many times they are replied to.
Perhaps the greatest insight into your biased mind is best summed up by your own words.
If such a god exists, then the role of Satan suddenly makes sense, not as the personification of evil and rebellion, but as the first creature that realised god was an asshole, and then became a freedom fighter.
I’m not even angry with you Abaddon. I really like you. Your voice here is critical to helping others to think for themselves. The more you spew your globalist extreme liberal venom, the more people are likely to use their own minds in determining what kind of life they would like to have a say in creating.
