beecee

No, he was evil along with others, some I have mentioned. You are the one [obviously again] that has put yourself isolated, out on a limb. I have given a few real life examples, one particularly gruesome one, with regards to a man out on bail for sexual assualt, then raping a poor little girl in a toilet block. He obviously is beyond reform, and incidently, beyond even caring or worrying about. All monies available should be spent on rehabilitating and looking after that little girl for as long as she needs and locking him up and throwing away the keys.

Of course humans are capable of evil, just as they are ca[able of good. We are also obviously a few pay grades above other animals...mostly anyway, other then the usual despots like Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, But of course its also as obvious as dog balls, that you are using this to push your rather unpopular, unrealsitic philosophy about life and what goes with it. Such condescending philosophical tones with me are like water off a duck's back by the way. Now a couple of questions for you..why is me questioning your unrealistic political philosophy with facts with regards to justice, evil and such like religion? And thirdly why quote an opinion of mine from another thread about atheism and science, in this one? Are you that keen in practising your nonsense with me? Not really sure, but really, I mean really!! so fucking what!! If you are of the opinion he is not or was not an evil man, then I pity you and as before, this debate is ended. Your choice.

You have my aanswer many times over. Hitler was an evil man, as was Idi Amin. 100% factual. Now answer the topic question or comment on mine instead of prancing around with [to take a line from you] your fingers in your ears... this one....Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science. Any comment?

I find the possibility of you being deliberately obtuse, to put it mildly. First, it wasn't an explosion, it is physics/science supported by evidence as I listed. Those that find ID and myth preferable to believe, are mostly ignorant of the evidence and the science, particularly our ancient friends. You seem to want to put religion/mythical beliefs and science on an equal footing. They are actually worlds apart for the reasons given. It's not in the least scary to me, as I understand to a limited extent the science behind the cause. And please stop telling the ancients and the animals around that time what they were and were not scared of. Obviously eclipses, volcanic eruptions etc, would have been scary...it's even scary today to many that live in the open, even though they understand the causes. Animals of course still retreat in utter fear when fireworks are set of. Ever had a dog? 😄 It's spelt o-b-t-u-s-e-n-e-s-s...and you are revelling in it at this time. Tell me anyway how there god is/was protecting them from it. Volcanic eruptions can have, [particularly in the long past] devestating, long lasting effects over large areas. In the past, the Moon was a lot closer to Earth then what it is today...about half its distance I recall. Eclipses would have been a lot more common, and a lot longer, and all total eclipses, despite you attempting to make light of them. WTF!! 🥴 You have actually lost me...I havn't a clue what you are saying, other then being rather obtuse and argumentive for argument sake. On the highlighted bit by me, I say so what? Local magic spaghetti monster, or some omnipotent creator that said abracadabra, let the universe be!!! Let me state my opinion again...Science is quite open with "we don't know" answer. But by the same token, based on current science/cosmology/particle physics, we are able to come up with some reasonable speculative answer. My best guess is with Professor Lawrence Krauss' suggestion...fluctuations in the quantum foam, the quantum foam being defined as "nothing" [that has existed for eternity] far, far closer to nothing then some complicated deity, don't you agree? Nothing supernatural about those speculative scenarios at all...all based on current science. Then you say with respect to my factual paragraph above, So why do you come to a science forum, if you are not interested in science? Particularly when they admit openly when they don't know, instead of manufacturing some belief in some weird magic spaghetti monster. Like one other I have crossed swords with in recent times, you appear only to want to preach from your pulpit, your philosphical take on life. People in the general populace and all of us believe a myriad of things. Yet we still all depend on science just about every day of our lives. That was addressed to zapatos and his quote...."There are also people who claim to know absolutely that there is no god". Quoting myself in context, just because science as yet does not have the answer to the big questions, like why and how the BB banged, why and how Abiogenesis took hold, is still no reason to manufacture a "God of the gaps" This thread isn't about your politcal philosophy. You are I believe near my age? Don't you not want to know the answer to life's big questions before you kick the bucket? Does life exist elsewhere? How did the process of Abiogenesis take hold? Is the universe finite or infinite? Why do you expect inanimate, abstract entities to answer you back?

We actually have evidence for a long ago evolution of space and time. [1] Reversing the observed expansion, [2] the uniformity of the CMBR at 2.73K, [3] Abundance of the lighter elements, and [4] the tiny variations in that CMBR, being the seeds for galactic formation. Coomon place but obviously still damn scary, due to the lack of knowledge behind such causes...particularly volcanis eruptions and eclipses, and that need to explain. And who would that somebody be? some imagined omnipotent, supernatural being that created it all. Science is quite open with "we don't know" answer. But by the same token, based on current science/cosmology/particle physics, we are able to come up with some reasonable speculative answer. My best guess is with Professor Lawrence Krauss' suggestion...fluctuations in the quantum foam, the quantum foam being defined as "nothing" [that has existed for eternity] far, far closer to nothing then some complicated deity, don't you agree? Nothing supernatural about those speculative scenarios at all...all based on current science. Or even as far back as the greatest educator of our time, Carl Sagan mused....[from the 35 second mark]

But one does claim to know universal truth. That's the beauty of science in it being an open book, governed by the scientific methodology. Can't go along with that. The occasional meteorite hit, thunder, lightening, eclipses, etc would have been damn frightening for ancient man, and I'm sure they needed some comfort and solace to accomodate those fears. Certainly they used the most basic and obvious results of science to help them...cooking for example. But they still were in awe of the violence occuring in the atmopshere as mentioned, and even all those volcanoes and had nothing to explain such happenings. Some also go to church to impress. Just one example of their talents, in line with their ignorances of the sciences of the heavens. I reckon you have hit the nail fair, square on the head. I mentioned somewhere sometime, that while Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation for how life started, as yet, we still have limited knowledge on the actual pathway. The future will in time I believe, reveal answers to are we alone [No I don't believe we are] and convincing evidence of support for a particular pathway for Abiogenesis. I hope I'm still alive and kicking for the answers to those two awesome scientific questions.

The repeated block of nonsensical text is reported. I did post on this last week with a question that has yet to be answered.... My question is why isn't any BH gravitationally decoupled from the large scale expansion rate, in the same way our solar system/galaxy /local group is also decoupled from the large scale expansion rate? Or am I missing something? Yes I understand that this is hypothetical at this time, but why havn't those proposing this hypothesis, not seen it as I have? from https://phys.org/news/2021-11-expansion-universe-impacts-black-hole.html New study proposes expansion of the universe directly impacts black hole growth: the paper here.... https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac2fad

Why do you insist on postings blocks of text, rather then offering real time evidence? And again, you are making unevidenced speculative nonsense as opposed to tried and tested mainstream theories in the sciences. Ask yourself, why mainstream science is mainstream.

Yes, I posed a question with regards to that in the astronomy section, which has yet to be answered....here.... https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126064-universal-expansion-and-black-hole-growth/ Your expanding earth hypothetical appears as nonsense though.At least nonsense being pushed by many expanding Earth proponents with claims of doubling in diameter, and akin to the Flat Earth nonsense I suggest. Earth can gain very minimal mass compared to its actual mass from astronomical collisions etc, but it also can lose mass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#Main_arguments_against_Earth_expansion In fact we are more then likely losing mass... https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/sep...is-earth-getting-heavier-or-lighter-1.4804900 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16787636

I agree whole heartedly, but science has given us many of those answers, from those ancient times when we were ignorant of many things. Add that to the fact that it continually updates and modifies those answers, and our ignorance continues to grow less and less. Yet no evidence exists to confirm either answer. While my previous comparable analogy of Gods with fairies, may have been faulty [I agree with zapatos logic] science has answered many of those questions that ancient man hypothesised a deity to explain, so continually invalidating any need for any creator to very minimal levels that science has yet to explain. eg: why and how the BB banged...process of abiogenesis.

Thank Christ I don't live in a world without science...preferable to some idealised pretend philosophical utopia. Agreed, and more often then not, used as a means to a selfish end.

There is nothing to discuss, you have my far more realistic answers on that score. Prisons are a necessary evil, end of story. Do I need to read up on Goldilocks and the three bears to know its nonsense? Oh, and you forgot to comment on my statement thus...you know, the heart of the question posed by this thread.

Wow! Beautifully done and near had me on my knees praying...By the King

we have no evidence that supports the existence of any divine supernatural magical entity. Are there fairies at the bottom of my garden? we have no evidence that supports the existence of any divine supernatural, magical entity. That's similar to my stance. Science has dragged us out of the ignorant times when we saw the Sun, Moon, Mountains, Rivers, Volcanoes, eclipses, as the actions of some omnipotent deity. While as yet, we still cannot explain how and why the BB banged, what was before the BB, and/or why as yet we do not have a working, reputable model of Abiogenesis, we have come a long way, on a very informative, interesting scientific journey. I see that journey continuing.

I actually reject being labeled an Atheist or anything else for that matter, other then recognising that science explains most of the universe and life around us, and continues to explain more and more. What need do we have for any deity when science can reasonably explain as far back as t+10-35th seconds? The problem as I see it, is that the universe is a cold, dark non caring product of evolution. And the evidence shows that once you are dead, you are dead..kaput, the end! Many humans do not like that answer and it sends a shiver up and down their spine. I'm aligned with Carl Sagan and his answer in the following 2 minute video...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EQDhtVl_50 specifically the part where he says, "If the general picture of the universe of a BB followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then suddenly the matter was created? How did that happen? In manny cultures the customary answers are that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to persue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did god come from? If we decide this is an unanswerable question, then why not conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and say that the Universe always existed. There's no need for a creation, the universe always existed. These are not easy questions, cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries and questions which were once treated only by religion and myth." As an amateur non scientist, who has grown [to late in his life sadly to really do anything constructive about it] to realise the beauty of science and its methodology, I understand that science does not have all the answers as yet, and probably never will, but I also understand that it has pushed back the need for any supernatural and paranormal explanation of the universe to near oblivion. In essence I don't even think about any atheisitic or agnosticism definitions of what I have learnt from forums such as this, and the reading of a large amount of reputable material that espouse the scientific methodology and its answers. I have also had one or two baggage laden individuals, claiming that my adherence to science and its methodology is a religion like belief, specifically of course when that science debunks the more mythical reasons that they may or may not hold. Science and its methodology to me is simply a refinement of everyday thinking, atheistic, agnosticism or whatever label some may chose to put on that. Religion, belief in a particular deity offers comfort and solace to people. I would never ever attempt to destroy that unless that person projects their belief in attempts to deride science, and/or when and if such beliefs interferred with evidenced backed science and medicine.eg: blood transfusions for a minor and such. Just needed to recently attend a funeral of an old school mate of Maltese extraction and deeply religious. We/I respected his beliefs on prior visits and actually re-enforced those beliefs of his with comforting words for him and his family.

It's a valid excuse and reason, based on the evidence. I know your answer is based on unrealstic faulty philosophy and my time is precious rather then wasted on such unrealastic nonsesne. Not at all and again a crazy, faulty answer and your answer is obviously and certainly not 50%, more like .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the world's opinion on that despot. Evil is the opposite of good and some humans are evil...Hitler for example. You dismissing that 100% correct answer, shows the extreme measures you need to sink to, to maintain your so called philosophy. From Merriam... Meaning of evil 1: morally badan evil villainevil spiritsevil deeds 2: causing harm or injury to someoneShe drank an evil potion. 3: marked by bad luck or bad eventsThe city has fallen on evil days/times. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eg: Hitler as an evil man...Idi Amin...equally evil No wrong again...I was getting a headache arguing against your "argument for argument sake" and conclusive, philosophical nonsense and excuse making for such evil despots as Hitler. 🤮 Plus this appears to be getting off topic as usual. Again, Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science. Any comment?

All I see is lines and lines of repeated rhetoric. What you think about expanding space is of no great concern, unless you present evidence to the contrary, or another prediction that cannot be explained by the current model. Rhetorical claims without evidence is just that. We have reasonably informed professionals on this forum [not me by the way] and they should be able to confirm one way or the other, with regards to your hypothesis. In the end, if you are seeking glorification for invalidating the current model, and evidence to support your own hypothetical, then write up a professional paper for peer review and present your model/ideas.

Nana Mouskouri .....again..... Spanish this time Country and Western

Any evidence for what you are claiming? This sounds like more speculaltion.

Nice try, but sorry, no banana this time. PS: You are also in the wrong section. Something that any man and his dog should be able to get right. That was quick!!

I'm not the first to comment on your obtuseness, and supporting that, I'm also not sure what I am 100% certain of. No thanks...I'm doing OK and leave you to your own questionable philosophy. Ahh, I see...this is what you have remarked on to support whatever philosophy/opinion you want to support. It's off topic but if you would like to continue practising your philosophical stance on that little bit of 100% certainty, then go back to the relevant thread. I didn't realize I had such an affect on you. What you obviously need to do in that thread is show me that people who exhibit evil immoral behaviour don't exist...best of luck with that. Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science.

Ghideon has made some valid points. Another that struck me was the above claim. It is as far as I know, all mass/energy, baryonic or otherwise that distorts spacetime, and the fact that light/photons, follow geodesic paths in that distorted/warped field. I do support your "well done NASA" and is well deserved and note that this as usual is science in its never ceasing path in gaining new knowledge. The Chandra X-ray Observatory was also the probe/scope responsible with the bullet cluster anomaly and the further evidence at that time for non baryonic DM.

Your obtuseness is near as obvious as your usual cryptic message, including your weird link. And as per usual, when you start practising your form of philosophy, we start going off on a tangent. Getting back on track, can you be a scientist and believe in religion too, yes of course, except in the case where a personal belief in religious fairy tales, conflicts with scientific results and/or answers.

Not at all and a highly faulty warped appraisal, to support your warped view.....

Not everyone who gets assistance, aids, bonuses etc are lazy. Many through no fault of their own have simply falled on bad times, are incapacitated to some degree, or are too old to work. Are you questioning, and also lumping in old age pensioner payments in your lazy group? We pay taxes to fund services in its many forms to the community in general, and to assist those that are less fortunate and of course our retirees. In some advanced countries, those taxes also are subsidised with a small percentage annual payment to fund a comprehensive all purpose health/hospital and medical scheme, which can be exhorbantly expensive. If there is a fault in any particular tax system, it is often seen with regards to loop holes, allowances, and other schemes for the filthy rich. Not that I am in any way envious of that group, but there are examples where these loop holes and allownaces mean that total tax by this group is negligable and not a fair representation of what such individuals, companies and orginizations should rightfully be contributing to society. The dregs and hangers on of society certainly exist in some that you call lazy, but it also exists at the top echalons also.