Ringer Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Absolute evidence is uncertain for both I.e. both for science as well as theists. Therefore who amongst these two will have the last laugh in years to come is still unknown. Yes, the same way the evidence is uncertain between evolution and creationism. Meaning yours has no evidence and is a ridiculously convoluted story, while the other is an explanation of what is seen. If you really dislike your life so much as to become desperate and a feeling of void in the absence of frilly mysticism, I feel really bad for you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Yes, the same way the evidence is uncertain between evolution and creationism. Meaning yours has no evidence and is a ridiculously convoluted story, while the other is an explanation of what is seen. If you really dislike your life so much as to become desperate and a feeling of void in the absence of frilly mysticism, I feel really bad for you. I don't feel bad for him at all, he wants to devote his life to a fairy tale made up by primitive humans in the absolute absence of any evidence and thinks this fairy tale is more important than reality he deserves what he gets for his efforts... NADA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 Your language reflects very badly on you, don't you realize? To you also, have some decency & restraint on your language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Absolute evidence is uncertain for both I.e. both for science as well as theists. Therefore who amongst these two will have the last laugh in years to come is still unknown. Actually, evidence is perfectly certain. The interpretation of it might not be. There is plenty of evidence for science. Can you supply any evidence (of the sort that would be accepted in court) for the validity of religion? Also, while we may not know who will be laughing in the end, we know which side gave more people the chance to live and laugh in the meantime. Seriously, if you had a life-threatening infection, would you trust prayer or antibiotics? And you didn't answer my question. Why do you choose to misrepresent science? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Absolute evidence is uncertain for both I.e. both for science as well as theists. Therefore who amongst these two will have the last laugh in years to come is still unknown. No one is asking for absolute evidence, empirical evidence is what is asked for and you have none... you make outrageous claims, easily refuted btw, as though they mean more than the reality around us. Science has lot of evidence, evidence is what science is based on, theism however has nothing but the claims of charlatans, snake oil, horse feathers, bull butter but no evidence at all. Science does have evidence but lets get real, we are not really talking about science, evidence or even reality, we are talking about hopes, dreams, feelings, and fear of death. We are talking about the methods used by primitive humans to control each other, tribesmen in a one up man ship game of I am better than you because my god is better but no wait my god is better, no mine are, "neener neener neener" childish drivel taken to the nth degree... used so many times to justify the dehumanizing of the other people and you dare to suggest that science is doing the same thing by providing real answers to questions that were long answered by "my god did it" Science isn't not absolute but it is based in a real world we can measure, touch, and see... not a fairy tale for adults... Your language reflects very badly on you, don't you realize? To you also, have some decency & restraint on your language. I beg your pardon? Please clarify how my language is indecent? I can give you few indecent remarks if you like that would be even more accurate in describing your position... as far as restraint.... we have been past that point for some time now don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 Standard model has infinities. This is a great issue for great thinkers of quantum physics. That is why I said:- Absolute answer is uncertain. Don't make dialogue personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 So... is the consensus on sandwich god ready? I'll take a Rubin on pumpernickel please... Standard model has infinities. This is a great issue for great thinkers of quantum physics. That is why I said:- Absolute answer is uncertain. Don't make dialogue personal. There are no absolute answers, absolute answers imply the end of investigation, always a bad thing, it stifles progress... What if we had accepted the absolute answer of what lightning is? Divine intervention? Then we can't even conceive of preventing a stroke of lightning much less design devices to protect us from it... That oak tree must have really done something bad for god to have blasted it with that stroke of lightning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 At least there is some meeting ground I.e. 'There is no absolute answer'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 At least there is some meeting ground I.e. 'There is no absolute answer'. Indeed. Now would you like to answer my question. Why do you misrepresent science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 If one is satisfied with empirical answers, this is o.k. for that individual. Humanity is vast & very diverse. And so for many amongst them empirical answers do not suffice. If one is satisfied with empirical answers, this is o.k. for that individual. Humanity is vast & very diverse. And so for many amongst them empirical answers do not suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 If one is satisfied with empirical answers, this is o.k. for that individual. Humanity is vast & very diverse. And so for many amongst them empirical answers do not suffice. yes and they tend to want to push their horse feathers on everyone else as though it had some meaning in the real world... not cool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 These are your words. These are your words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 These are your words. These are your words. And your point would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Indeed. Now would you like to answer my question. Why do you misrepresent science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 To some nothing would satisfy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Possibly, but why don't you try? Answer the question. Why did you decide to misrepresent science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 Strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Strange. bot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Weird. demented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 18, 2012 Author Share Posted November 18, 2012 Demented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Here's a question I hope you can answer, how much can a troll eat? Because it has been fed quite a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Strange. What's strange about asking you why you act immorally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandragupta Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now