Scope Users Community
https://www.forums.scopeusers.com/
True. However, none of the scientific hypotheses assume the existence of a supernatural being.darkrezin wrote:What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang to happen?
There is a lot that conventional rational science does not know and cannot even theorize about.
Are you serious? Because this is pretty retarded and I don't know how else to approach it. I abuse physics? You're a lunatic.stardust wrote:You dont know nothing about Big Bang Bingo.BingoTheClowno wrote:There are plenty.manfriday wrote: what proof is there that God doesn't exist?
I have not seen any. I'd be quite interested to see this proof.
First, we know that god did not create the Universe. The Universe was created with the Big Bang. The Earth was not created in 7 days but it was created in billions. You claim he created the man in his own image but we are not ominpresent and omniscient, thus that's a lie (not to mention as whole this whole notion is retarded). And on and on. What you chose to believe in is pure folklore.
Again you abuse scientific theories for your ideology of perceived superiority.
The big bang theory is a theory.
It is not a history book for charlatans like you demonstrate here to be one.
It is one of the current well accepted models to explain a certain portion of empiric physics results.
There are for example other theories like the the cyclic universe from Steinhardt Turok that even better fits the current (the current !!) perception in physics.
Argumenting on your level would immediately ask what was before the planck era and who or what triggered the big bang ?
You dont know nothing about cosmology and it's limitations.
And you abuse again physics to spread your doctrine.
Your other proofs are often discussed in the philosophy of religions.
You cant stand the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam even if you try to ignore it.
Thanks for immediately approving your hypocrisy.
But it's a pretty fucking huge question, let's face it. Just because science hasn't assumed something to be true yet doesn't make it meaningless or rubbish. Like was once the case with sub-atomic particles such as quarks, it's simply not quantifiable yet, like many other less obviously physical concepts in our reality. Take the concept of 'love' - does it exist? How do you measure it? Does the fact that you cannot measure it make it any less useful or beneficial?BingoTheClowno wrote:True. However, none of the scientific hypotheses assume the existence of a supernatural being.darkrezin wrote:What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang to happen?
There is a lot that conventional rational science does not know and cannot even theorize about.
I must also point out that for someone so aggressively defensive about being judged, you make a hell of a lot of judgments and insults about others and their beliefs (what else is calling people 'lunatics' and 'demented'?). The exact same words could be turned on you. You'd be a lot more deserving of them too. Sorry to say it, and contrary to what you will probably think I don't take any pleasure in saying this - the fact that you cannot realise this unfortunately (for you) reveals how shallow and ignorant you are.BingoTheClowno wrote: What the fuck do you know about my life? Do you know me personally? What would you call your generalisations besides presumptious bullshit?
darkrezin wrote:What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang to happen?
There is a lot that conventional rational science does not know and cannot even theorize about.
That's stupid. We are talking about religion not about me. Attacking me personally with false allegations denotes lack of integrity and most of all your inability to respond rationaly to most of the posts.darkrezin wrote:I must also point out that for someone so aggressively defensive about being judged, you make a hell of a lot of judgments and insults about others and their beliefs (what else is calling people 'lunatics' and 'demented'?). The exact same words could be turned on you. You'd be a lot more deserving of them too. Sorry to say it, and contrary to what you will probably think I don't take any pleasure in saying this - the fact that you cannot realise this unfortunately (for you) reveals how shallow and ignorant you are.BingoTheClowno wrote: What the fuck do you know about my life? Do you know me personally? What would you call your generalisations besides presumptious bullshit?
What a groundbreaking theory... be proud of your analytical skillsbraincell wrote:darkrezin wrote:What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang to happen?
There is a lot that conventional rational science does not know and cannot even theorize about.
I have always contended that god was invented by tribal elders to answer questions that could be not be answered. People are very curious and for some reason they need to have an answer for everything. They also can't accept mortality. To say loved ones are in heaven is comforting. To have an answer for every question is comforting.
It is so easy to say god did it or that this was the intention of god.
But when you don't know any better yourself how can you have grounds to dispute other theories?
I don't agree. If your belief is sound then it should stand up to criticism. What if your belief assumes that all white people are superior to any other. Whould you respect that belief?Shroomz wrote: I do agree, that everyone's beliefs should be respected. I do in fact respect everyone's beliefs myself. They just don't all make sense to me. In fact most of them really do seem insane if you want to talk about sanity Gary. Some might say the insane are the sane ones though!!
darkrezin wrote:What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang to happen?
What a groundbreaking theory... be proud of your analytical skills
Your answer to my other post was great - I couldn't have reinforced my point any better myself. Bravo
Of course not, but after seing all the evidence to the contrary and still maintaining that same erroneous premise, there's something wrong with you. It almost is an obsessive-compulsive disorder.braincell wrote: Like I said, this does not mean you are insane because you are within the bounds of current popular thinking.
Man, I'm sorry but I don't know how to deal with lunatics.stardust wrote: Dear friends of the intellectual narrowness.
I think you recently lacked of positive enthusiasm.
please find here some booster for your discomfort in order to recharge your batteries.
In short: You are deeply locked into the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam with the atheistic panting for a proof of god.
Get alive my friends
Dear friends of dialectic lopsidedness, that you impressively demonstrated in this thread.
For your enjoyment a simple google search spit out some links.
I am sure reading them will bring you hours of discomfort that you seem to prefer to slightly more decent ways of life.
Enjoy.
All others do not need to waste time on it. Nothing amazingly new. Just the other side of the medal.
You dont know nothing about Big Bang Bingo.
Again you abuse scientific theories for your ideology of perceived superiority.
Still, you lack of modesty towards other's experience.
This is no insult as you might claim again.
You are so concerned with your (tortured) ego that you very likely will not see anything than your own point of view.
Is it really so difficult to accept that you and the likes of you are not the superbrains and messiahs that the world has waited for ?
In the best case you attract some other egocentrics to share their personal pretentiousness.
You dont know nothing more about this world than others, but you are entitled like anyone else to live a good life and be a good example what life should be.
It is easy to let you live your way of life. It does not matter much. I wish you a happy, meaningful and prosperous life. Dont suffer too much. That is really unhealthy.
Please spare me your doctrine of salvation. It lacks of capacity.
The big bang theory is a theory.
It is not a history book for charlatans like you demonstrate here to be one.
It is one of the current well accepted models to explain a certain portion of empiric physics results.
There are for example other theories like the the cyclic universe from Steinhardt Turok that even better fits the current (the current !!) perception in physics.
Argumenting on your level would immediately ask what was before the planck era and who or what triggered the big bang ?
You dont know nothing about cosmology and it's limitations.
And you abuse again physics to spread your doctrine.
Your other proofs are often discussed in the philosophy of religions.
You cant stand the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam even if you try to ignore it.
Thanks for immediately approving your hypocrisy.
you are in your pattern of ignoring if you dont like things again.
This pattern is boring because it repeats now.
Though it seems to fit into the -ism way of feeling superior and knowing it better than all others, you should be aware that by that it becomes visible, that your doctrine is not capacious enough.
Also your try to instrumentalise science for the purposes of atheism is a repetition.
Science is a tool that knows it's epistemic limits.
You ignore these limits in your deterministic world view.
Scientist do research, you do exegesis of science models.
They ask for the how and what, you claim to know the why and who.
The positive thing about is that your extreme simplifications and your demonstrated scientific nescience unveils your doctrine. Thus it looses credibility.
As you can see also other readers are not taken in by this pseudo scientific arguments.
And I love to see your obscenities. They tell more about your ideologic intent than your adopted arguments.
At the moment these are the limits (we assume, I don't know where is the actual limit in physics knowledge). Don't you think that bypassing them with supernatural theories is not the most correct thing to do? Why can't we accept the limits of our knowledge and just try to move them forward slowly like we are doing since we stopped fearing our shadow?darkrezin wrote:What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang to happen?
There is a lot that conventional rational science does not know and cannot even theorize about.
braincell wrote:I can explain love as a biological, chemical, process which has been an evolutionary benefit for the individuals and the species and which creates a very nice bond, some would say an illusion but an enjoyable one.
Wiki wrote: Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy.
no, i'm saying the bastard blames religion for war, and then he does his best to incite a war, which just happens to be against an atheist, who is supposed to be a bad war monger.BingoTheClowno wrote:Are you saying that christians were too stupid and followed his advice? Are you saying that christians don't think for themselves?
