I like it! I'm still trying to figure out how to act around JW's who recognize me. Depends on who it is and my mood as to what I say to them if anything at all. I've stopped trying to avoid them. The ones who smile and say Hi I don't mind, it's the ones who are at my place of work or at the store who make eye contact and then give a cold shoulder that I sometimes like to go up to and see how much they will converse before it becomes me talking at them about the weather or recent events or they walk away.
sunny23
JoinedPosts by sunny23
-
38
Reverse Shunning
by exwhyzee insometing happened yesterday that i thought might be noteworty enough to relate to you here.. mrs. eyz and i were invited to my new boss's home for his annual end of summer party.
it's a pretty big deal....his is a name known locally (i'll call him j.r.) a really nice interesting guy who's held a number of high level and politically connected jobs.
there was to be music, dancing, wine and reprotedly lots of well dressed, well educated, well to do and influential people (oh yes...and us) in attendance.. anyway we thought we'd make an occasion out of it and got ourselves spiffed up which involved new outfits and extra mirror time before we left home.
-
-
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
-
-
sunny23
5 - Death doesn't matter anyway
"This being does not feel about death as we do because He KNOWS it is NOT a bad thing" Psac
Then why did jesus cry when Lazarus died? Why did Jesus selfishly resurrect Lazarus if he knew that Lazarus was in a better place? How horrible it would be to bring someone back to an earth full of suffering when they are already in heaven right? If I was Lazarus and Jesus resureccted me back to earth after I was already enjoying a McDonalds milk shake in a hottub in heaven i would be pissed! Jesus woulda got a slapping! The idea "death doesn't matter in the long run," has already been used here, doesn't work according to logic or according to the bible when truly put to the test under christianity.
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
-
-
sunny23
"We simply do NOT KNOW why God decides to not intervene and we can simply express POSSIBLE views, which is what I have done.
Agreement with this views is irrelevant to be honest."Psac
Agreement is relevant to this thread! If your views do not agree to typical christian theism and the entire bible then it is NOT relevant to this thread! This thread asks to offer consolation as to why the God of the entire bible according to christianity would permit 250,000 deaths in a tsunami. You haven't adequatley touched that topic and your views are thusfar NOT POSSIBLE in accordance to the threads guidelines.
4 - God is unable to prevent a tsunami
It seems Psac, you now believe in a God who set in motion physics long ago and has watched everything play out like an ant farm with no involvement except to vist for 33yrs at one time conveniently before videocameras and internet, turn some water into wine, flip some tables, heal some lepers, and raise his friend from the grave, only to say "alright guys keep talking about me and get everyone to believe in me or I will kill them eternally when I come back, see ya!" and then he goes back up to heaven. You don't believe God created Adam & Eve roughly 6,000 years ago right? You don't believe God hand crafted the earth in several phases right? If so you are not representing viewpoints akin to typical christianity.
"You are asking if God can make soemthing that you can conceive YET have no evidence CAN exist and my answer is No, He can't make something that can't exist just because we would like it to.Now, if you are saying that the life on this world could come to be the way it is under DIFFERENT conditions then I would say prove it."Psac
I can concieve someone being clinically dead and resurrected three days later but there is NO evidence that this can happen or has ever happened (like to Jesus) so I would say "prove it." However you claim that God can't make something exist that defies our current laws of nature and physics right? Does not the instantaneous healing of leperosy or raising from the dead 3 days later, or using some unseen forces to part a sea or calm the weather defy our laws? How about Jesus being resurected to some new "form" and shape/entity? To hold to your own argument means you must also deny any miracle performed by Jesus ever! To accept all the biblical stories of Jesus means you accept that things that defy our physical laws can exist or happen because God can do just that. Thus God could create a universe without suffering. Would you not want to prevent your children from suffering Psac? Would you kill one child and then beat the remaining child to teach that remaining child compassion? The bible says God loves a sparrow to a high degree and much more so his human children. His love should be higher than any human parent could show to their child yes?
"The bible itself makes no mention that God CAN or DOES divert natural disaters to save lives"Psac
WOW! Have you read the bible at all!? Seriously Psac read it a couple more times and then come back.
"seeing what type of God is demonstrated in Jesus's life, death and resurrection and deciding IF that is a God you deem worthy of worship."Psac
Jesus said in Mat 12:30 that those who are not with him are against him and will be destroyed. If you do not follow or agree with Jesus then you do not inherit his kingdom, you are etenerally destroyed or tortured. How childish is this? A loving parent would still love their child and keep them safe even if their child didn't agree with anything they ever said, told them they hate their parents, and disobeyed at every chance, the parent would never harm/kill their child. Why can't God be like that Psac? Actually Jesus exhibits a non-compassionate bias enough to put him on a level to be conscientiously OK with letting 250,000 people drown when he could have saved them. That is if in the future as predicted in the new testament Jesus is willing to kill billions of people simply because they don't believe in him or dont agree with him. Hitler comes to mind.
-
32
Science and Philosephy.- God
by HowTheBibleWasCreated inwhen i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.
the rest is history.
i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .
-
-
sunny23
You were wrong, end of story.
The phrase i said "sub-atomic matter including the original elements," was a list. I was listing the two for the purpose of over-emphasis. I was not trying to say that sub-atomic matter is made up of elements. I should have put a comma between them or just typed elements first to keep from mis-leading.
It is very true you havemade several false statement and admitted them yet, perversely, somehow claim you still know what you are talking about, all evidence to the contrary.
Thats a seperate topic from the original statement within the post I said that nothing was false which only referenced the scientific quotes I used with that single post. You are re-visiting my admitted mistakes by emphasizing things outside of the quote when you said, “Clearly you must mean "nothing is false other than the several things I have recently admitted to being wrong about."-Viviane. "I was refering to the scientific claims within that one post up until that point and that still holds true."-Sunny Also I never claimed to know what I'm talking about. In fact I admitted to hating science as a kid and that i'm currently learning, thanks for teaching me.
Google and wikipedia would be an excellent first step
I did, all of the elements in the human body can be found in stars whether they are small stars, large stars, or supernovae. I previously said "Everything that makes up the human body can be found in a star." You denied it, please tell me which elements viviane, I must be overlooking them.
I will respond to the rest tomorrow.
-
32
Science and Philosephy.- God
by HowTheBibleWasCreated inwhen i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.
the rest is history.
i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .
-
-
sunny23
I think I see where we got off on the wrong foot on page one. You were talking about the very beginning before matter and molecules existed and I was talking about matter and molecules after they initially came into existence after the big bang and after helium and hydrogen were around before stars up until now...
They HAVE existed since AFTER the Big Bang. Prior to atomic formation there were just particles. Then atoms, then stars, molecules, etc... so on andso forth. By your very own offered evidence the universe started out with less complex form and now we have, according to you, MORE complex forms. I just wanted to retain your admission of you not understanding what you wrote several times over so that, when you once again didn't understand what you wrote, we would your own words showing you're not really grasping what you write. I would be sorry if that seems harsh, but I'm not. Once you decide to take up the mantle of science, it's a brutal and harsh world."
Ummm what did I say about hydrogen that was scientifically wrong?. We obviously were not on the same page in time of the universe. I never said that the first particles to come into existence right at the big bang didn't add complexity. I have been speaking from a post-bang perspective the whole time, nice try though.
“Also, you have it exactly backwards. Elements include sub-atomic matter, not the other way around. That can go on the list of things you were scientifically wrong about.”
A misread into my statement. I was not implying that elements make up sub atomic matter, i was mentioning elements specifically as well knowing they are composed of particular arrangements of particles because a mention of heavier elements coming into existence was previously brought up so i tagged it along for emphasis that I wasn't only concerned with particles yet more concerned with elements coming from stars. You took an unintended perspective on that one ;)
“Clearly you must mean "nothing is false other than the several things I have recently admitted to being wrong about".
I was refering to the scientific claims within that one post up until that point and that still holds true.
“Someof the elements in ahuman body come from other places that exploding stars.”
Which elements in our body aren't released from stars? I'm eager to learn so please enlighten me. See what I did there, with light in enlighten, in a science/philosophy thread about stars hehe.
I have been using the word information to mean the smallest building blocks of matter. In the analogy of humans to apes that would involve the components that make the building blocks of DNA, more specifically the atoms that make up each of the ACTG nucleotides. I felt I made it clear that two objects could be considered where one can be viewed as more complex MEANING "intricate" in capabilities or appearance than the other and yet they are identical on an atomic scale and atomically are not more complex or INTRICATE than the other in composition. There, I more clearly defined it and gave two "senses" in which "complexity" can be applied. I hope that answers your statement "Which makes me wonder why you will not say in what sense you mean it." Even though I feel I already established the senses in which I mean because I have already stated analogies of things being more complex in appearance or abilities but not more complex in atomic structure.
“So things are not more complex, but they are?”
Consider two snowflakes of the same mass where one has a simple shape and the other has an intricate shape, you could consider the more intricate shape to be more complex in appearance. However is that more intricate appearing snowflake more complex in atomic composition yes or no? If you say "no," as you should, then there is a simple example where something is more complex in one sense, but isn't more complex in another sense.
Another way to look at it is this: Lets say we take Viviane, we disassemble her by breaking off each atom one by one and discarded them. We then took the exact same amount and types of elements from the cosmos and brought it back and then reassembled her back to exactly who she was. She is more intricate/complex in visible appearance and abilities than individual atoms floating in space but she is not structurally on an atomic level any more complex because she consists of the same atoms whether assembled into a viviane or just floating in star dust. The atoms complexity is not affected. It's like comparing puzzle pieces before and after the puzzle is built. The complexity of the whole puzzle remains the same before and after you put it together in a fundamental sense so long as the puzzle is in a container. I like to view the universe since the formation of hydrogen as one giant dynamic puzzle in a container that's stretching out.
This thread is titled "science and philosophy" so its expected to contain abstract ideas and applications. I never claimed to be right as you say I insist that i do, i didn't, I also apologized where i am corrected to be wrong, because i'm here to learn and I'm not omniscient unfortunately and I hated science as a kid but enjoy learning it now. I also, now due to your close criticism of my statements (which i respect and appreciate), have been trying to make sure not to state anything scientifically false and I don't believe I have in the last two posts I made previously unless you can teach me what elements that compose the human body are not emitted by stars when I said, "And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body." If i'm not wrong on that then everything else I said over the previous two posts falls under philosophy-perspective, and opinion :)
-
82
Is Faith Immoral?
by Coded Logic inwhen people willfully believe something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, are they neglecting thier moral responsibility?
so many people say faith is a virtue but i just can't comprehend why anyone would think that.
.
-
-
sunny23
I could also argue that the virtue of faith is one of the evolutionary holdovers, revered by the majority of the populace and may indeed be necessary. Unified in religious faith, a community may choose to work together (bee behaviour) to expel a danger. --jgnat
Salem Witch trials = religious faith holders working together to expel a danger. How many innocent people died in this case of "bee bahviour." I'm sure one could come up with many more massive casualty examples than this though. "bee behavior" can be positive or negative and religion can be a backbone factor in intiating bee bahavior as you agreed. When this behavior becomes immoral though (burning on a cross young women who don't agree with the church and must be witches), this doesn't mean that religion is immoral and thus faith is immoral. Actions and intentions can be judged as immoral. How can ones beliefs in things unseen (faith) be immoral?
I think that faith in groups produces religion, religion then produces bee bahvior, bee behavior can produce intentions that lead to actions, the later can be judged as immoral.
-
32
Science and Philosephy.- God
by HowTheBibleWasCreated inwhen i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.
the rest is history.
i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .
-
-
sunny23
But that example was utterly wrong. Every example you've given to demonstrate how well you understand conservation of evergy has show that you absolutely do NOT.
I already admitted to that example not being an adequate portrayal of that Law, it was my mistake, you skipped that part apparently.
Things that have complex structure (like hydrogen atoms) exists today that did NOT exist in the earlier universe.
hydrogen atoms are the simplest of all elements and have existed since right after the big bang estimated 14billion years ago...
The universe is more complex. You're admitting it and refusing to admit that you are.
Um no, in my last post I admitted to the universe being more complex in that sense. How can I admit it and refuse to admit it after I verbally admitted how I could see the universe being more complex in the sense of converting its elements into planets? It's like you are picking a fight?
A math professor might say that "a car engine is complex," and a mechanic might say "no, it's not, but calculus is complex." It's perspective. My perspective is that everything in the universe is simple in the sense that it all came from a few original elements and once it formed the rest of the heavier elements over time billions of years ago, it has since only rearranged them and will continue to do so according to the three quotes I posted in my last post. And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body. "Approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen. Helium makes up about 25% of the mass, and everything else represents only 2%." Also, "All the stars in the universe, including the Sun, are nuclear furnaces fueled by fusion. Through fusion, stars are responsible for forming all the naturally occurring elements heavier than hydrogen and helium."
Nothing in this post here so far is scientifically false, it is only my opinion that the information (sub-atomic matter including the original elements) I have been mentioning, has not become more complex itself, it has only rearranged. Look at apes and humans. Humans are more complex wouldn't you agree? I would say yes, except on a microscopic level I would say NO. We share 98.8% DNA with them and even that 1.2% DNA we don't share is still made up of the same subatomic particles but in a different arrangement. Thus on a sub atomic level we are not more complex than apes, just rearranged. You could even bring it a step closer and say that your thinking abilities are more complex than your twin sister with Downs Syndrome and yet she is the same as you biologically aside from a small gene sequencing disruption. When it comes to the sub atomic level you are not more complex than her. Perspective has been the crux of our convo apparently. Complexity can be applied in more than one way as you acknowledged by asking me, "I would have to question how you are defining complexity."
-
32
Science and Philosephy.- God
by HowTheBibleWasCreated inwhen i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.
the rest is history.
i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .
-
-
sunny23
Show one example of a galaxy that disintegrated
I was researching black holes the other week and stumbled on something mentioning a massive black hole being observed to dismantel the small galaxy it was in but I can't find it anymore. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "disintegrate." I apologize.
That's not at all what the law of conservation of energy says. If that were true, the total amount of stars would be zero at at given time.
I know what the law is and I was only using the rate of formation and destruction of stars as a possible macroscopic view of the universe exhibiting the laws of conservation of energy which means that no energy is ever lost, it is only transferred elsewhere. However I acknowledge that as a bad example considering I am finding sources that say that more stars are forming than dying... "These rates also imply that per year about four solar masses of interstellar gas are converted to stars, the team said. About ten billion years into its life, the Milky Way galaxy has now converted about 90 percent of its initial gas content into stars. Star death is intricately tied to star creation because it provides the raw material --- elements strewn into interstellar space --- as well as the energy in the form of shock waves that prompts cool gas clouds to condense and form stars."-NASA
Based on the above and following quote I could see how the universe could be seen subjectively more complex in the sense that it has convertedit's initial simple elements like hydrogen and helium into heavier elements that form eventually into planets like earth leading to other biological events, yielding planets that didn't previously exist, and life on earth.
"Practically all of these heavy elements were formed in generations of stars: stars that lived, burned their fuel into heavier elements, died and shed their heavy, enriched elements back into the cosmos, and were incorporated into the next generations of stars and — when the heavier elements became abundant enough — rocky planets." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/05/why-did-the-universe-start-off-with-hydrogen-helium-and-not-much-else/
However from a microscopic view of the entire universe, the materials needed to create everything have existed from the beginning and have since been converted into different arrangements over time without loss or gain(theoretically). Everything that makes up the human body can be found in a star. We might be more complex subjectively than a star in the sense that we have consciousness for example, but one could take the view that we are just a rearrangement of materials. This is what I was getting at, subjective views of complexity. I agree that an iphone is more complex than a payphone. When looking only through a microscope though, the perspective changes. I feel I was concerned more about the microview of things and you were taking the macroview.
“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson -
32
Science and Philosephy.- God
by HowTheBibleWasCreated inwhen i discovered ervs and #2 chromosome i knew there was no personal god.
the rest is history.
i have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.. .
-
-
sunny23
Viviane, I am not trying to woo anybody and aside from the scientific laws I posted about conservation, everything else was just speculative questions to spark response. Also I think there might be misunderstanding when using the word "complex." Concerning the universe, I would use the word "complex" to describe the level of information density or essentially the amount of atoms/molecules within the universe. So I took your statement and Coded's statement to imply that the universe is constantly increasing it's contents of matter/energy. Conservation of energy apparently is accepted as fact within our earth but is only theory in the universe which I JUST learned, and is why I kept pointing out scientific law along with physical cosmology observations of stars being formed at a rate equal to their destruction (within the Milky Way), and the disentigration of galaxies, however other factors inculding acceleration of expansion leads some to theorize that the universe does NOT conserve energy. From my last post I admitted to putting my foot in my mouth when trying to insert room for a "God" where scientific unknowns exist. From my research just now it can not be proven that energy is lost and it can not be proven that new matter is coming into existence at a rate greater than old matter is disappearing in the universe. I apologize for making assumptions that earthly laws definitively apply to the universe. I'll stick to debating religious doctrines and philosophies instead of cosmologies from now on :/
-
2596
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty inyesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
-
-
sunny23
In reference to bohms great analogy: Riddle me this Psacramento.
