A Tripolation

It never tells me when people quote me anymore. Yes, it works when you think about how Jesus was perfect and didn't DESERVE to die. If he was a flawed man, I would agree with you. But he wasn't. He was a perfect man. Because science requires fact and empirical evidence before it can answer anything. Religion is not constrained by that. Yes, the answers could be wrong whereas science is only ever 'incomplete'. But it can still 'answer' questions that science cannot. As in, WHY we exist.

So if we have v naught is equal to 0, doesn't that mean that the object is no longer moving at that exact instant? Even if it has acceleration, that doesn't mean that it is currently moving, right? Just that it will be in a moment. Or do I need to retake mechanics? Saying that a and v have to be simultaneously zero for no motion isn't entirely true, is it?

I'm really trying to understand your argument here. So everyone agrees that the velocity must equal 0 at the turning point? And then you're saying that the piston is under constant influence of acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational pull, therefore it never stops moving? Did I get it right?

...I never knew classical mechanics was so hotly disputed.

No, you're completely wrong. Yeah, that's iNow. You'll get used to it after a while. And even if he called you "foolish", he didn't say "You're foolish and that's why you're wrong." That would be an ad hominem. He just called you foolish. So according to current observational evidence, I'm right? Thanks.

I am an agnostic theist. I believe in a deity. I do not purport to know the absolute truth that this deity exists. That is why I say "I believe" and not "I know". I can't find where he used an ad hom against you. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Cause is related to time. If there was no time, there can be no cause. Current physics is aligned with the fact that there was no time before the singularity event. Your statement is illogical.

Science can never answer WHY we're here. Science can never answer what our purpose is. Those are not scientific questions. It falls from the definition of omnipotence. This is unexpected to you? Yes. That's interesting. Would you care to give me some of the more compelling verses you have come across that indicate this is how Jesus thought? Please do not just copy-and-paste from evilbible.com. I would much prefer to read and dissect the verses that lead you to believe Jesus agreed with this morality. Because He died. Because He endured pain and torment. Because, at some point during the crucifixion, He declared that God had abandoned him, yet he still did not curse the Romans or try to sell anyone out. That is a sacrifice.

Why are we here, what is the meaning of life, etc, etc. Omnipotence would allow his effects to go unnoticed, if God so chose to intervene. The monotheistic religions are pretty much all worshiping the same God. The polytheistic religions were mostly created to explain stuff like thunder or the seasons. Jesus is historical fact. That seems to lend more credibility to Christianity than most other religions. But, yes, they may be right and I may be wrong. That is a very true possibility. I don't claim to know the truth. How is Jesus' sacrifice in any way dependent upon the time it took to create the Earth as we know it today?

*sigh*. I'm a moron. Yes. You're right. I was thinking about it being Evee's words since it was her reading the note.

Not really, because the answers that religion provides me are answers that science will never be able to have, due to the nature of the questions. Either I take the answers from some form of religion or I believe that the questions are meaningless and without substance. I tend towards the former. I don't mind being asked. The existence of a God, such as a God like the Judeo-Christian one that transcends all of reality, is unfalsifiable. That's what I mean by that. Is the Bible falsifiable? Certainly. And this is why I know there are translation errors (statistical probability), bias errors (Council of Nicaea, King James, etc), incompleteness (unmentioned deuterocanonical texts, the Apocrypha), and the question of the authors of the various texts in the anthology (many, if not all, of the texts in the New Testament were written AFTER the named Authors had passed. The OT is rife with author credibility). All of these things lead me to believe the Bible is the work of flawed men. It is not the complete word of God. But it is the closest thing we have, in my opinion. I reject many notions of the Bible as the work of primitive man. The OT is violent and bloodthirsty. Genesis is a fairy-tale. The entity that I believe in, Jesus, is a monumental figure in all three Abrahamic religions, and is accepted as a historical figure that existed. His divinity is what is in question. And I believe He was divine. Again, that is a personal opinion I have made after thinking over the situation for many a year.

The critical difference you fail to understand is that THEISTIC beliefs cannot be tested in a scientific manner. The claims they make cannot be FALSIFIED. Nor do intellectually honest theists say that their beliefs carry any weight in the scientific realms. All of the examples you mentioned above are TESTABLE ideas that run contrary to mainstream science. In what world does belief in an omnipotent deity fall under the dimension of science? Congratulations on the best false comparison I've seen in a long time, iNow.

Oh. Hey. I guess we've never met before. My name is Tripolation and I believe in a deity. I can offer no proof of his existence, it is just a personal belief of mine. Really. Sometimes the theist bashing gets incredibly carried away in this forum. It's uncalled for.

Oh, I do believe in all the things you say. But you're wrong about this.

It's a testament to individualism made by Valerie when she discovered herself after being tortured by V and reading the note she received in 'prison'.

I read your post and I see your point. But I still do not think you are justified in pinning the blame on religion. I think you need to pin the blame on humanity. If you replaced all the references in religion to your post to, say, children that grew up in impoverished regions where violence is the name of the game, your points would still stand. Such a transference does not suggest to me a sole instigator in the waste of human talent and the degradation of quality of life.

...exactly. My point is that religion, nowadays, isn't the hamper on good ideas like it once was. Listening to the posts in this thread, it's almost as if these people genuinely believe that all theists denounce science and want to send us all back to the stone age. Of course the answer is science. I have never disputed this. I am disputing that religion is this regime that tries to destroy every good idea that it happens to come across. That is the specific thing that I am arguing. I tend towards the opinion that religion no longer behaves in this manner anymore. Since when does your opinion equal fact?

...uh huh. Reading through that, it seems that many are torn on the issue. And that others are ok with other types of stem cell research. Hardly the windfall you're making it out to be. And yes, I understand the difference between the two types of stem cells quite well. They are not opposing it on religious grounds. They are opposing it on ethical grounds. It's the same as if we were to start testing new drugs on people instead of animals. It would work out much better for discovery and research. But it would be much more unethical. The people opposing the stem cell research are the ones that consider an embryo life. I am well aware of your position on this issue, iNow, but if i recollect properly, there is no scientific or medical line at which we can define where humanity starts. Otherwise, there would not be an issue. I do not see this as a "religious issue". And, once more, other non-religious people oppose it. I honestly have no idea why abortion/embryonic matters are attributed to religion. It plays no part in my decision. Oh, I see what he's saying now. Thanks for clearing it up. I have been offered a grand total of three counter examples. Contraceptives, stem cell research, and evolution. The only one I can see as being impeded by religion is evolution and the teaching of it, because of pending legislation. As far as I know, there are still many successful contraceptive manufacturers. And stem cell research has not been brought to a halt because of the outcry of a few. Yes, that's despicable, and they should be charged with murder. It was intentional. But I am asking for instances where religion inhibits good ideas as a whole. I accept that it is done with evolution. But I see no threat to contraceptives or stem cell research. Or even medicine. Most everyone actively seeks medical help in any situation. Because religion isn't hampering the contraceptives market. I agree to this. But, honestly, what power are they getting from such a superfluous rule?

Many are. The sad fact is that it's only the screaming, hateful people that get heard from the most. Thank you for the kind words, though. Exactly. Things are changing for the better. That is my entire point. Actually, we're all born damned and then, upon receiving Jesus' grace, we become redeemed through Him. Abstinence is the best form of birth control. I don't see how anyone could dispute that. I do not think it is illegal to do such a thing. But thanks for clarifying what you meant. As I stated with iNow, that's not a fair comparison. Ok, I see I was wrong about the statistics thank to yours and iNow's links. But that still does not falsify my position. ...well...dammit. I hadn't realized there was so much legislation over scientific fact. Anyways. I see that evolution is still heavily challenged. But what other "good ideas" are being oppressed by the religious?

Many people are opposed to this simply because of the nature of how the stem cell is obtained, even atheists. You cannot claim this as a solely religious issue. Yes, medieval Christianity was quite terrible. But we're not speaking of that now, are we? That's the same as me claiming that science still says we are a heliocentric universe, or that the Kepler orbits are accurate and Mercury's preccesion orbit does not exist.

Yes, you're right. I had a temporary lapse and was conflating the definition with something that meant a smaller-than-50%-portion. The Catholic church has deemed it a sin. That does not mean that the Catholics themselves follow it, nor does it mean that the other denominations of Christianity believe that it is a sin. There is no verse in the Bible pertaining to it. Nor does committing one sin send you to Hell for all of time. You do not know much about Christian doctrines. Please explain to me how not having intercourse is a bad way to avoid getting pregnant. I'd really love to hear it. I never said anything about preaching abstinence. You incorrectly inferred that. In what twisted world is limiting the children to two per household seen as forced abortion? After the second child, the parents would go through procedures to make them unable to have children. I'm not saying it's ethical or right, but it's a damn good way of controlling the human population, which we will need to do eventually. Pretty sure that most "secular" laws against murder and torture were against the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad as well. I'd like to see numbers that say this. I was under the impression that atheism was on the rise and belief in religion on the decline.

This is off-topic, so I'll keep it to one quick example. The gospels cannot agree on how Judas died. That's a pretty glaring discrepancy.

I like how you say "subset" and then proceed to write as if it is the majority of Christians. Maybe you do not know what that word means. What's your point? I just said it was a personal choice, which it is. Many catholics do not agree with the church's stance on contraceptives. Abstinence is the best, yes. There is nothing that beats it. But more importantly, I was thinking about limiting children to two per household. Or procedures that make people unable to reproduce. That would do more than contraceptives. It would be better population control. Yes, I'm sure the catholic church (which isn't even the largest sect of Christianity in the US) are rubbing their mitts together with all of this power they are getting from people not using contraceptives. Yes. Religions change and evolve. Thanks for agreeing with me. What were you hoping to prove with this?

They are not obvious to me, else I would agree.

Yes. I am not aware of an outcry against scientific inquiry. Most everyone uses modern medicine, computers, and accept the discoveries of science. It's a personal choice to use contraception. It's not a mandate made by the church. And some do not consider it a good idea. There are far more effective methods of population control. I'm not inclined to put contraceptions on the same level as evolution and the big bang theory.

No. Which is why I said MODERN Christianity. Can you please give me an example of this? I am unaware of any.