Topic: Thunderf00t: Einstein was wrong, God DOES play dice with the universe.
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #51,425
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3nF69AHKcw
YT;DW: Thunderf00t is an authority on Christian apologetics.
YT;DW: Thunderf00t is an authority on Christian apologetics.
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thunderf00t is right, Einstein was wrong. | 1 | 25% | |
| Einstein was right, Thunderf00t is wrong. | - | 0% | |
| No. 1 cars | 1 | 25% | |
| No. 1 cars | - | 0% | |
| No. 1 cars | - | 0% | |
| No. 1 cars | - | 0% | |
| MC Poll; Didn't Vote. | 2 | 50% |
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later[^] [v] #666,697
God why did I ever like this guy?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #666,698
@OP
Christian apologetics is bullshit, so Thunderf00t is right by default. Thanks.
Christian apologetics is bullshit, so Thunderf00t is right by default. Thanks.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #666,706
@666,697 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Huge fedora.
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
This guy gets it.
Huge fedora.
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
This guy gets it.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,728
god plays fuzzy dice with my balls
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,747
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,755
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,763
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,764
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,772
Anti !1XrAJ/shVk joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,774
repent!!!
and speak no further negativity of the Lord..
and speak no further negativity of the Lord..
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,778
@666,763 (A)
@previous (Anti !1XrAJ/shVk)
Is this video and thread not about a refuted argument around causality and the role of free will? Would you not agree that when people use the term God they are often referring to an undefined truth around physics, maths and the cause of creation?
I don't see anything about religion in the video (ignoring that word in that caption over that footage).
@previous (Anti !1XrAJ/shVk)
Is this video and thread not about a refuted argument around causality and the role of free will? Would you not agree that when people use the term God they are often referring to an undefined truth around physics, maths and the cause of creation?
I don't see anything about religion in the video (ignoring that word in that caption over that footage).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,786
@666,764 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Actually, I'm an agnostic.
@previous (H)
@666,772 (H)
He was talking about god. Thanks.
Actually, I'm an agnostic.
@previous (H)
@666,772 (H)
He was talking about god. Thanks.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,787
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,788
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,789
@previous (A)
How was he? I thought he was talking about God. You said that in your previous post?
I'm so confused, are you saying that God is organised religion?
How was he? I thought he was talking about God. You said that in your previous post?
I'm so confused, are you saying that God is organised religion?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,790
@previous (H)
Again, I'm not going to split hairs.
Here's another example of Thunderf00t discussing religion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch
Thunderf00t is a scientist. Scientists shouldn't discuss religion, just as Creationists shouldn't discuss science. It simply leads to confusion.
Again, I'm not going to split hairs.
Here's another example of Thunderf00t discussing religion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch
Thunderf00t is a scientist. Scientists shouldn't discuss religion, just as Creationists shouldn't discuss science. It simply leads to confusion.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,793
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,806
fyi i'm not watching/listening to this
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 51 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,808
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 41 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,809
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 0 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,810
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 44 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,812
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,816
@666,793 (H)
I would be disappointed if that was true. Creationism is not really backed by scientific evidence.
@666,790 (A)
I am pretty sure your're trolling, but I should point out the creationism, as a theory of life, shouldn't really avoid scientific scrutiny.
I would be disappointed if that was true. Creationism is not really backed by scientific evidence.
@666,790 (A)
I am pretty sure your're trolling, but I should point out the creationism, as a theory of life, shouldn't really avoid scientific scrutiny.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,819
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Biblical creationism is not a theory, it's an irrational belief. Scientific scrutiny would yield no results.
Biblical creationism is not a theory, it's an irrational belief. Scientific scrutiny would yield no results.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,822
@previous (A)
It yields evidence that it is an irrational theory.
It would be great if creationism could just be left to itself. But since there are Christians who try to push it as fact (some of which are good at making it sound convincing), there should be scientists who put forward scientific evidence to counter it.
It yields evidence that it is an irrational theory.
It would be great if creationism could just be left to itself. But since there are Christians who try to push it as fact (some of which are good at making it sound convincing), there should be scientists who put forward scientific evidence to counter it.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,827
@666,816 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Most scientists believe in the creation. As for the how, well yes the big bang theory is a lot less memeful than literal interpretations of Genesis but lets get down to brass tacks here: If you are talking about the general creation of the universe theory, you are talking an aspect of God.
Most scientists believe in the creation. As for the how, well yes the big bang theory is a lot less memeful than literal interpretations of Genesis but lets get down to brass tacks here: If you are talking about the general creation of the universe theory, you are talking an aspect of God.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,829
@previous (H)
Do you have any data to back up the claim that most believe? A sample that goes beyond America would be especially good.
> If you are talking about the general creation of the universe theory, you are talking an aspect of God.
Why the assumption that a god is involved?
Do you have any data to back up the claim that most believe? A sample that goes beyond America would be especially good.
> If you are talking about the general creation of the universe theory, you are talking an aspect of God.
Why the assumption that a god is involved?
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,831
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Do you have any data to back up the claim that most believe? A sample that goes beyond America would be especially good.
I think you know I won't have any data but sometime in the 20th century there was a movement in the scientific community away from a theory of a universe that had always existed, to one that was created. This is quite remarkable when you think of it.
> > If you are talking about the general creation of the universe theory, you are talking an aspect of God.
> Why the assumption that a god is involved?
That is by definition. If you disagree then see my previous question:
> Would you not agree that when people use the term God they are often referring to an undefined truth around physics, maths and the cause of creation?
> Do you have any data to back up the claim that most believe? A sample that goes beyond America would be especially good.
I think you know I won't have any data but sometime in the 20th century there was a movement in the scientific community away from a theory of a universe that had always existed, to one that was created. This is quite remarkable when you think of it.
> > If you are talking about the general creation of the universe theory, you are talking an aspect of God.
> Why the assumption that a god is involved?
That is by definition. If you disagree then see my previous question:
> Would you not agree that when people use the term God they are often referring to an undefined truth around physics, maths and the cause of creation?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,833
@666,822 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> It yields evidence that it is an irrational theory.
As mentioned above, it's not a theory. It's simply a belief. You understand the difference between a theory and a belief, don't you?
> It yields evidence that it is an irrational theory.
As mentioned above, it's not a theory. It's simply a belief. You understand the difference between a theory and a belief, don't you?
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 44 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,834
@666,831 (H)
Well... That was the 20th century. This is now.
I don't find it inconceivable that some chunk of scientists are creationists, since not all science directly challenged creationism and the scientists. And scientists are still humans prone to cultural influences and such.
> Would you not agree that when people use the term God they are often referring to an undefined truth around physics, maths and the cause of creation?
I see what you're getting at, but I would not agree. They're referring to a character in their religious texts. In their view, he's not a metaphor for an undefined truth, but a sentient, well-defined entity that was behind everything. "God" is usually a religious character, not a concept of the universe's mysteries.
Well... That was the 20th century. This is now.
I don't find it inconceivable that some chunk of scientists are creationists, since not all science directly challenged creationism and the scientists. And scientists are still humans prone to cultural influences and such.
> Would you not agree that when people use the term God they are often referring to an undefined truth around physics, maths and the cause of creation?
I see what you're getting at, but I would not agree. They're referring to a character in their religious texts. In their view, he's not a metaphor for an undefined truth, but a sentient, well-defined entity that was behind everything. "God" is usually a religious character, not a concept of the universe's mysteries.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,835
@666,833 (A)
Why isn't it a theory? It's a proposed explanation for how life started, and creationists often put it in direct competition with the theory of evolution.
Why isn't it a theory? It's a proposed explanation for how life started, and creationists often put it in direct competition with the theory of evolution.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,838
@666,834 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> > Would you not agree that when people use the term God they are often referring to an undefined truth around physics, maths and the cause of creation?
> They're referring to a character in their religious texts.
> "God" is usually a religious character, not a concept of the universe's mysteries.
It really isn't. OK admittedly sometimes by some people it is used to mean that, but in modern thinking it is definitely not used to mean any kind of religious character.
> > Would you not agree that when people use the term God they are often referring to an undefined truth around physics, maths and the cause of creation?
> They're referring to a character in their religious texts.
> "God" is usually a religious character, not a concept of the universe's mysteries.
It really isn't. OK admittedly sometimes by some people it is used to mean that, but in modern thinking it is definitely not used to mean any kind of religious character.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,842
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,843
@666,835 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Clearly, you don't understand the difference between a theory and a belief. That's not really surprising; most people use the two words interchangeably.
Theories can be tested and replicated. If you plug a live wire into a socket then hold the uninsulated end, you can easily demonstrate the theory of electricity. There is no possible way to test the belief that a supreme being created the universe in six days.
Clearly, you don't understand the difference between a theory and a belief. That's not really surprising; most people use the two words interchangeably.
Theories can be tested and replicated. If you plug a live wire into a socket then hold the uninsulated end, you can easily demonstrate the theory of electricity. There is no possible way to test the belief that a supreme being created the universe in six days.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,845
@previous (A)
Then, as someone whom finds no credible existence for the existence of any god, you are, in fact, an atheist. Thanks.
Then, as someone whom finds no credible existence for the existence of any god, you are, in fact, an atheist. Thanks.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,846
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
> Then, as someone whom finds no credible existence for the existence of any god, you are, in fact, an atheist. Thanks.
This doesn't make sense.
> Then, as someone whom finds no credible existence for the existence of any god, you are, in fact, an atheist. Thanks.
This doesn't make sense.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,849
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,851
@666,843 (A)
That's all well and good, but if creationism is being pushed as factual explanation of life then it should still be subject to scientific scrutiny.
@666,838 (H)
I haven't really come across this usage of the word "god", myself.
Is there not a less ambiguous term that could be used, if the matter in question is the unknowns of creation? I would image that many would immediately think of a religious figure of some sort if the term "god" is used.
That's all well and good, but if creationism is being pushed as factual explanation of life then it should still be subject to scientific scrutiny.
@666,838 (H)
I haven't really come across this usage of the word "god", myself.
Is there not a less ambiguous term that could be used, if the matter in question is the unknowns of creation? I would image that many would immediately think of a religious figure of some sort if the term "god" is used.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,855
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I would image that many would immediately think of a religious figure of some sort if the term "god" is used.
I wonder if those that do, do so in order to feel smug; simplifying and negating the perspectives of others.
> I would image that many would immediately think of a religious figure of some sort if the term "god" is used.
I wonder if those that do, do so in order to feel smug; simplifying and negating the perspectives of others.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,858
@666,845 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
No, I'm an agnostic. I don't know one way or the other.
@666,851 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> it should still be subject to scientific scrutiny.
For what purpose? We already know it cannot be verified or falsified via the scientific method. It would be about as pointless as investigating invisible, mass-less unicorns.
No, I'm an agnostic. I don't know one way or the other.
@666,851 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> it should still be subject to scientific scrutiny.
For what purpose? We already know it cannot be verified or falsified via the scientific method. It would be about as pointless as investigating invisible, mass-less unicorns.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,864
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 58 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,883
@666,855 (H)
...Or they might just be going with the dictionary (and common) definition.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god?q=God
@666,858 (A)
That's not quite true. At least one aspect of creationism, the time of Earth's creation that it presents, is falsifiable, and has been extensively disproven.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
But otherwise, as I said, it should still be compared (unfavourably) to the scientific explanation as long as some of its followers insist on promoting it as a fact.
...Or they might just be going with the dictionary (and common) definition.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god?q=God
@666,858 (A)
That's not quite true. At least one aspect of creationism, the time of Earth's creation that it presents, is falsifiable, and has been extensively disproven.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
But otherwise, as I said, it should still be compared (unfavourably) to the scientific explanation as long as some of its followers insist on promoting it as a fact.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,886
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,887
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,890
I haven't studied philosophy so I am not entirely sure what point he's trying to make with this video.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 19 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,896
@previous (Metæ)
That's OK he also doesn't know what point he's trying to make.
That's OK he also doesn't know what point he's trying to make.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 19 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,910
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The best I can get is: if there were two perfectly identical universes, exactly the same things would happen in each universe. But if they didn't, then free will exists? But what does it even mean since we dont have two universes. If things were different, then things would be different.
The best I can get is: if there were two perfectly identical universes, exactly the same things would happen in each universe. But if they didn't, then free will exists? But what does it even mean since we dont have two universes. If things were different, then things would be different.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,913
@previous (Metæ)
I mean, he never defines what "god" is or what "free will" is so it's hard to know what he means. He defines determinism at the beginning of a video that tries to prove that determinism proves god has no free will...but then doesn't define free will or god. Also he doesn't understand the philosophical concept of "possible worlds". It's just a confused video. This is what happens when scientists try to do philosophy: it's messy and ugly.
I mean, he never defines what "god" is or what "free will" is so it's hard to know what he means. He defines determinism at the beginning of a video that tries to prove that determinism proves god has no free will...but then doesn't define free will or god. Also he doesn't understand the philosophical concept of "possible worlds". It's just a confused video. This is what happens when scientists try to do philosophy: it's messy and ugly.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 46 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,918
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Would it have been better if he just said "God is omnipotent, therefore he knows everything he is going to do, therefore god has no free will since he can't do something he doesn't know he's going to do"? Kind of a pointless video since thunderf00t (and I would imagine 90+% of his viewers) don't believe in god anyway.
> This is what happens when scientists try to do philosophy: it's messy and ugly.
Yeah. I love his science videos but this just left me confused.
Would it have been better if he just said "God is omnipotent, therefore he knows everything he is going to do, therefore god has no free will since he can't do something he doesn't know he's going to do"? Kind of a pointless video since thunderf00t (and I would imagine 90+% of his viewers) don't believe in god anyway.
> This is what happens when scientists try to do philosophy: it's messy and ugly.
Yeah. I love his science videos but this just left me confused.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,919
@previous (Metæ)
Well that would be Omniscience. Omnipotence is maximally powerful. The conventional theistic god is the tri-omni god: Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. Sometimes Omnipresent is added. And if he were to make that argument it would be adding nothing new to the discussion. That is like literally Phil 101. There are theistic responses and then non-theistic counter-responses etc. None of which he knows or cares about. I wish he just stuck to making videos about the retarded scientific things creationism entails and didn't go full atheist.
Well that would be Omniscience. Omnipotence is maximally powerful. The conventional theistic god is the tri-omni god: Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. Sometimes Omnipresent is added. And if he were to make that argument it would be adding nothing new to the discussion. That is like literally Phil 101. There are theistic responses and then non-theistic counter-responses etc. None of which he knows or cares about. I wish he just stuck to making videos about the retarded scientific things creationism entails and didn't go full atheist.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,929
Adam Djensen joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,930
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,931
@666,919 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It sounds like one of those "could god make something so heavy he couldn't lift it" questions that no one knows or cares the answer to.
It sounds like one of those "could god make something so heavy he couldn't lift it" questions that no one knows or cares the answer to.
Anonymous J replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,932
so this entire argument is based on you people not defining terms like 'creationism'
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,934
Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,951
Small well a HUGE problem OP has with topic
Einstein was NOT religious and his famous quote is poorly understood because he was using God only as a Metaphor.
Einstein was NOT religious and his famous quote is poorly understood because he was using God only as a Metaphor.
piss pig joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 57 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #666,962
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,080
@666,883 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> That's not quite true. At least one aspect of creationism, the time of Earth's creation that it presents, is falsifiable, and has been extensively disproven.
Good point.
@666,864 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Do you actually know the meaning of the word "agnostic"?
> That's not quite true. At least one aspect of creationism, the time of Earth's creation that it presents, is falsifiable, and has been extensively disproven.
Good point.
@666,864 (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Do you actually know the meaning of the word "agnostic"?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 32 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,089
@previous (A)
Yes. It means "I am a spineless pussy, whom is afraid to offend religious people". Thanks.
Yes. It means "I am a spineless pussy, whom is afraid to offend religious people". Thanks.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,093
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 30 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,094
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,099
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,102
@previous (A)
Another definition of "agnostic" is "I am a spineless pussy, whom is afraid to offend God just in case he exists". Thanks. Thanks. Thanx. That shall be all.
Another definition of "agnostic" is "I am a spineless pussy, whom is afraid to offend God just in case he exists". Thanks. Thanks. Thanx. That shall be all.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,103
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,107
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #667,108
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #667,235
OK, let's get this thread back on topic: fundies shouldn't discuss science, because they aren't authorities on the subject. Similarly, scientists shouldn't discuss spiritual matters, because it isn't their field. Thanks.
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #667,239
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #667,240
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #667,241
@667,235 (A)
But they are two explanations in direct competition in explaining how Earth and the universe started.
When there are two competing explanations, they should be compared to see which is the more compelling. Especially for a question this important. Thanks, thanks.
But they are two explanations in direct competition in explaining how Earth and the universe started.
When there are two competing explanations, they should be compared to see which is the more compelling. Especially for a question this important. Thanks, thanks.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #667,243
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Then leave the scientific explanations up to the scientists and the religious beliefs up to the fundies.
Then leave the scientific explanations up to the scientists and the religious beliefs up to the fundies.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #667,246
@previous (A)
That does not really address what I said. The two are not separate issues, and will inevitably come into contact.
The fundies and scientists are both claiming expertise on the same question, so the two commenting upon each other makes sense.
That does not really address what I said. The two are not separate issues, and will inevitably come into contact.
The fundies and scientists are both claiming expertise on the same question, so the two commenting upon each other makes sense.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #667,247
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Scientists know nothing about divine creation and fundies know nothing about science. Sheer common sense dictates that neither should offer views on things they know nothing about.
Scientists know nothing about divine creation and fundies know nothing about science. Sheer common sense dictates that neither should offer views on things they know nothing about.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #667,250
@previous (A)
I believe this discussion is becoming circular. As such, I shall bow out now as I do not see it progressing any further. Farewell, my good fellow or lady.
I believe this discussion is becoming circular. As such, I shall bow out now as I do not see it progressing any further. Farewell, my good fellow or lady.