patrick.net

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

To repeat what I said before,

I don't understand why you are so upset over the existence of religion.

I'm anti-religion because I'm anti-murder, anti-theft, anti-genocide, anti-torture, and anti-bigotry. All "successful" religions are for those things. Your Christianity is no different.

1. Early Christians destroyed the Great Wonders of the Ancient World including the Library of Alexandria and the Statue of Zeus.

2. Christians brutally tortured and murdered Hypatia, the last librarian of Alexandria. In a time when women had few rights, Hypatia was a well-respected philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer. The Christians, who hated independent women, mob rushed her in the streets, tore off all her clothes, and then killed her by removing all her skin with sea shells. This made Jesus's crucifixion look like a picnic. The leader of the premeditated murder, Cyril the Bishop of Alexandria, was ordained a saint by the Christian church.

Carl Sagan tells the story of Alexandria in this video and the horrific murder of Hypatia and the tragic loss of culture and history in this video. In these videos he also explains why rationalist need to speak out against mysticism. If you understand what he is saying, then you'll understand what I'm doing.

3. Early Christians oppressed and massacred Jews. This behavior would continue until the 1940s.

4. During the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, Christians burned men, women, and children alive as witches and warlocks even though there are no such things.

5. During the Middle Ages, Christians raged war multiple times on the Middle East in the form of "Crusades", which were nothing more than a religious excuse to rape, pillage, and plunder foreign lands while suppressing domestic populations by keeping them in fear of foreigners. This is a tactic still used today by religion.

6. It is the nature of religions to grow and then fragment as power struggles erupt between would-be kings. This happened to Christianity several times, first in the Great Schism, and later in the protestant reformations. The result of these power struggles was tribal religious warfare the likes of which we see in the Middle East today.

7. Next came the Inquisition in which Christians, now fragmented, systematically tortured and killed anyone who would not submit to being their slaves. The Christians made the most horrific and despicable torture devices like the rack, the Judas Cradle, and the Iron Maiden. Gotta love that religion.

8. Next on the shit list was anyone speaking about provable truths like the Earth going around the Sun. The Christians threaten Galileo with arrest, torture, and death for him and his daughter, thereby silencing him and holding science back.

9. In fact, Christianity held back science by at least a thousand years. If we were 1000 years more advanced, we'd surely have the cures for cancer and AIDS by now. So you can count all the cancer and AIDS death as part of the Christian body count.

10. During the Imperial Age, the Christians brutally enslaved and killed "heathens" from India to America. The Spanish Conquistadors are one example. All in all, Christians would commit genocide, destroying two continents of people in the New World alone. Similar atrocities would be carried out in Africa and Asia.

11. As Christianity has long embraced slavery as god's will and their bible supports enslavement, "heathens" from Africa were made to serve as slaves to the Christians in both Europe and the Americas. The price of this crime against humanity is still being paid today.

12. In America, when slavery was finally abolished by a bloody civil war, a Christian terrorist organization called the Ku Klux Klan continued to wage a bloody war against former slaves and their descendants for the next 100 years.

13. Christians once again committed genocide during the 1930s and 1940s in Europe. The Holocaust was a faith-based initiative just like 9-11.

14. The entire Bush-Cheney reign of terror was heavily based on religion and fighting a religious war against Islam. In Bush's own words, "God told me to invade Iraq" and the Iraq war is a "crusade". And this is the guy who had the nuclear launch codes.

And these are just some of the better-known examples of why Christianity has been evil throughout its two thousand year history. There are a plethora of other crimes you can read about.

Of course, I could also show an extensive list of crimes committed by any major religion for it is in the nature of religion to commit crimes against humanity. Religion works by destroying all opposition and brainwashing the masses. And even if you don't agree with these statement, if you are at all rational, you would agree that history has at least shown religion to have done many really bad things in every single century.

And now with nuclear weapons, environmental disintegration, advanced germ warfare, and a host of other problems, can we really risk the insanity of religion and mysticism? A thousand years ago, a civilization might get wiped out because of religion. Today, our entire species could be obliterated by irrationality. And that is why I am anti-religious. I'd like to see our species continue to exist.

49 bob2356 2012 Jan 14, 7:13am

Dan,

I don't understand why you are so upset over the existence of religion. I'm assuming you believe Religion is a "phenomenon" that occurs ultimately because of physical laws (like any other phenomenon). If religion is just a phenomenon like weather, earthquakes, stars, and planets, why be so upset about it? It would be like saying "weather is bad".

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

How is a believe system in any way shape or form like a physical phenomenon? That is the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard and I've listened to George W Bush's speech explaining why we needed to invade Iraq.

50

marcus 2012 Jan 14, 12:28pm

Gee, what a coincidence!

Yes, it's mind control. But I've heard that if you put the tinfoil inside of some sort of regular hat (even a baseball cap works, or you can use a fedora), it will block the mind control rays and people won't know you're wearing the foil.

51

marcus 2012 Jan 15, 12:00am

Gaia worship is at the very heart of the Global Green Agenda

Are you saying you agree ?

It does make some sense right ?

Respect nature and the planet. Plan for long term coexistence with the planet rather than using it up in short period of time.

I don't really blame Christianity for the fact that we don't plan in this way yet. It's the simple fact that humans are collectively selfish and ignorant. We are just following our instincts and hardwiring which tells us to reproduce and consume.

"'The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.â€™

What do you think we should do ? Just leave it all in the hands of God ?

Don't you see that even if there is a God, he, she or it gave us a free will, which includes the ability to wake up, plan for the long term, and figure out how to take care of our planet, for the benefit of future generations.

I guess it might be easier to just focus on our own lives, our reward in an otherworldly heaven, and assume that armageddon is coming, so why bother worrying about the planet ?

I don't see how any real Christian would see God as independent of this world (ie this ecosystem).

52

Bap33 2012 Jan 15, 12:40am

Evil is meant to be opposed.

I agree, 100%. Who gets to decide what is evil, and why them? How will they carry out their defense of good, or destruction of evil? I don't mind using God's Word as the tool for determining what is evil and what is good. What do you suggest?

Dan, that quote is pretty much why Bush went after Sadam .. aint it? And, that is what those crazy arabs say about every non-arab islamuslamist too .. aint it? I mean, they constantly attack Isreal and all things Western/Christian because they say those peoples are evil. So, when a person feels something is eveil, they should oppose it, right? Now you see what Prop 22 and Prop 8 have shown the militant deviants of mexifornia.

Also, up above, you said that the definition of morality did not matter. So, those who oppose public acceptance of deviant sexual couplings are not doing anything wrong, in your opinion. Am I reading that correctly? Or, is that opinion situational.

Dan, I respect your abilities to argue a point. You are a master, no doubt. Your computer skills and typing skills and communication ability are outstanding. I wrote my responses a little bit smartassed to make sure you would respond!! lol. I mean no offense and look forward to your retort. Enjoy this day.

p.s. Science requires faith in your eye's ability to see, and your mind's ability to desern the sights. Why does the moon have no rotation upon it's axis? Where is the moon from? Was there ever more Earth moons? The scientific answers (or theroy/guesses) to these questions have very little to no "proof", and require "faith".

53

Bap33 2012 Jan 15, 12:41am

Respect nature and the planet. Plan for long term coexistence with the planet rather than using it up in short period of time.
I don't really blame Christianity for the fact that we don't plan in this way yet. It's the simple fact that humans are collectively selfish and ignorant. We are just following our instincts and hardwiring which tells us to reproduce and consume.

good points

54

marcus 2012 Jan 15, 1:10am

I say this partly in jest, but I would really like to know.

There are so many good conspiracy throries, how do you choose which ones to believe and which ones to disregard ?

Is it because some truly creative person put it on the internet ?

Pagans were framed as being tied to the devil since way back. That was basically a propaganda method used to convert people from the old ways to the new way (Christianity). Burning witches at the stake ? In the name of Christianity ?

Give me a break.

If you are a buddist, you might want to check out "the middle path."
It would suggest that these rather extreme conspiracy theories you have bought aren't doing you any good.

But back to my question. Sources for your theories ? Who are the respectable people that advocate these views. I understand that you may just be a creative humorist. In which case well done.

In any belief system, fear is the enemy. This Lucifer stuff only propagates fear, which is what Lucifer (if he existed) would want.

Nothing that lasts will ever be built from lies and deceit, and immorality.

Then you must be saying nothing can last, be cause there is no perfect morality. There are just many varied forms of self interest, including what I would call enlightened self interest which includes things like looking after the planet, and the disadvantaged.

(btw I too like buddhist philosophy and the idea of no harm to any living creatures but if I practiced it I would be a vegetarian, and I am way too much of a protien addict to do that. )

How are people supposed to find morality when you are throwing around the ideas of demons and such ? That's just a set up to see demons on the side of "the others" so that evil can be done in the name of righteousness.

55

marcus 2012 Jan 15, 1:42am

Check the resources I posted above

I will later when I have time. I'm thinking you may have some very special gifts that allow you to see these truths that such a high percentage of us do not. But I will check it out.

One other question, and it's just out of curiosity. In the past have there been some "truths" you found on the internet which you later rejected and decided were a little bit too far out there ?

56

marcus 2012 Jan 15, 1:53am

By the way, I do know what you mean about disinformation. there is so much crazy stuff published in the national enquirer and on the internet, that if there ever were for example real aliens or chupacabras (sp?) or whatever, how would we know ? Everyone would assume it was BS.

But that isn't a logical reason to start just randomly believing some random BS on the internet. I don't know, is it possible that GW Bush was a shape shifting reptilian alien ? Certainly if he was, it's so far fetched that nobody would believe it. Ahhhhh. it's the perfect head fake. Those clever aliens got us by making the reality too fare fetched.

It's the old make the truth so far fetched that it's unbelievable trick.

57

Dan8267 2012 Jan 15, 9:59am

Who gets to decide what is evil, and why them?

History, and it decides on the basis of what institutions and cultures have used violence and oppression to get their way.

nd, that is what those crazy arabs say about every non-arab islamuslamist too ..

All religions are bad. Islam in the Middle East is in the same state that Christianity was in the Middle Ages. However, religions can become more aggressive with time as well, as shown in the "heartland" of America. The solution is to phase out all religion, not replace one with another.

Now you see what Prop 22 and Prop 8

Not everyone lives in California or wherever you live. Prop 22 and Prop 8 refer to different propositions in different states.

So, those who oppose public acceptance of deviant sexual couplings are not doing anything wrong, in your opinion.

Rights trump morality. If they didn't, it would be legal for any crackpot to kill people the crackpot thought was being immoral including, but hardly limited to:

1. Abortion clinic bombings.
2. Hanging African Americans from trees
3. Baking Jews alive.
4. Forcing women pregnant with interracial or disabled children to get abortions.
5. Forced sterilization of the poor.

And yes, all of these things have happened. All but #3 have happened in the United States.

Rights trump morality.

I mean no offense

It is pretty hard to offend me, and utterly impossible to do so unintentionally.

Science requires faith in your eye's ability to see, and your mind's ability to desern the sights.

One can get ridicules if you don't accept basic common sense. Of course, we could all be living in The Matrix or The Thirteenth Floor or The Holodeck and everything we see could be an elaborate illusion. But to live one's life as if that's the case is quite impractical.

Science requires very few assumptions. That we exist and aren't some figments of some boy's dream is one of them, but it's a pretty safe assumption.

Why does the moon have no rotation upon it's axis?

The moon is tidally locked with the Earth and so does rotate upon its axis. The moon's rotation about its axis and its revolution around the Earth have the same period because gravity keeps the dense side of the moon pointed towards the Earth. This is called being tidally locked. The physics of this is well understood and available to read throughout the Internet.

Where is the moon from?

The moon formed when a planet hit Earth Mark I and destroyed both planets. From the debris of both planets formed Earth Mark II (the planet you are standing on) and the Earth's moon. The lesser dense material became the moon and the heavier material became Earth Mark II. Again, this is now well known and is easily researched on the Internet.

Was there ever more Earth moons?

Asteroids are sometimes captured by planets and become temporary or permanent moons. It's possible that the Earth had other small moons from captured asteroids, but what's your point. Whether or not the Earth had short-lived moons in its past is hardly an important issue. Perhaps a few scientists would be interested in how many temporary moons the Earth has had, but it hardly relates to the age of the Earth or religion.

The scientific answers (or theroy/guesses) to these questions have very little to no "proof", and require "faith".

Scientific answers, by definition, require proof. If there is no proof, there is no scientific answer.

Pagans were framed as being tied to the devil since way back. That was basically a propaganda method used to convert people from the old ways to the new way (Christianity). Burning witches at the stake ? In the name of Christianity ?

Actually, that's all true, and there are many more instances of similar things happening such as Jews being falsely accused of poisoning wells. Christianity wormed it's way into being the most popular religion by killing all opposition and incorporating pagan rituals and beliefs into itself. That's why Christmas is on Dec. 25th, an approximation of the Winter Solstice.

But that isn't a logical reason to start just randomly believing some random BS on the internet. I don't know, is it possible that GW Bush was a shape shifting reptilian alien ? Certainly if he was, it's so far fetched that nobody would believe it. Ahhhhh.

Now you're getting it. Now just replace the world "Internet" with the word "Bible" and the phrase "GW Bush was a shape shifting reptilian alien" with pretty much any phrase in the Bible.

Do that and realize the statement remains true for the exact same reasons, and you'll finally understand everything I've written about religion and mysticism.

58

marcus 2012 Jan 15, 2:09pm

Do that and realize the statement remains true for the exact same reasons, and you'll finally understand everything I've written about religion and mysticism.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone that refuses to even listen to what you say.

You think I have been advocating literal interpretation of the bible ? What you have mostly heard from me is disagreement with your extremely judgmental absolutist views against ALL religion, and even all "spirituality."

As far as I know you never did answer me. Where is you gratitude directed Dan ?

You and I agree on a lot of things, but I still say you are an arrogant prick.

59

freak80 2012 Jan 15, 9:58pm

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

But isn't rape a biological phenomenon, controlled ultimately by the laws of physics? Same with your laundry list of crimes commited by the church? If those people don't have free choice, they are like broken machines that need "fixing". They are victims of the laws of physics acting in their brains.

I take it from your quote above that you do believe in the existence of evil, and thus the existence of some kind of absolute, objective, morality. But can you back up your belief with some kind of scientific experiment? I'm only holding you to your own standards...

60

freak80 2012 Jan 15, 10:19pm

bob2356 says

How is a believe system in any way shape or form like a physical phenomenon? That is the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard and I've listened to George W Bush's speech explaining why we needed to invade Iraq.

Unless I misunderstand Dan8267, he is asserting that belief systems are ultimately the result of physics / chemistry in the brain, and are thus a physical phenomenon.

61

freak80 2012 Jan 15, 10:24pm

Rights trump morality

Can that be proven scientifically, or is that just your opinion?

And isn't the statement "right trump morality" a moral assertion?

62

freak80 2012 Jan 15, 10:27pm

Evil is meant to be opposed.
I agree, 100%. Who gets to decide what is evil, and why them? How will they carry out their defense of good, or destruction of evil? I don't mind using God's Word as the tool for determining what is evil and what is good. What do you suggest?

Bap33: right, that's my point. Who is Dan to say what is good and evil?

63

Bap33 2012 Jan 16, 12:25am

Dan8267 says

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

But isn't rape a biological phenomenon, controlled ultimately by the laws of physics? Same with your laundry list of crimes commited by the church? If those people don't have free choice, they are like broken machines that need "fixing". They are victims of the laws of physics acting in their brains.

I take it from your quote above that you do believe in the existence of evil, and thus the existence of some kind of absolute, objective, morality. But can you back up your belief with some kind of scientific experiment? I'm only holding you to your own standards...

excellant response.

64

Dan8267 2012 Jan 16, 12:32am

It's hard to have a conversation with someone that refuses to even listen to what you say.

It would be impossible for me to refute everything you've said as well as I have if I were not listening to the arguments. Do not confuse listening and agreeing, for they are two entirely different things.

You think I have been advocating literal interpretation of the bible ?

No. However, when I have been asked why I am against religion, my answers have been the historically verifiable crimes against humanity committed by religions especially Christianity. These crimes have nothing to do with whether or not you, Marcus, take a literal interpretation of the bible.

Furthermore, any Christian must take a few things from the Bible literally, or they would not be Christians. If you don't believe that Christ is literally god and literally rose from the dead three days after dying, then you're not a Christian. It's pretty much a deal killer if you take everything in the Bible including the resurrection as metaphoric. Yeah, Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, that was a metaphor meaning that if you live a good life your ideas will live on. If that's the case, you're as atheistic as I am and Christianity is just a philosophy, not a religion. Which, by the way, would be a good thing.

What you have mostly heard from me is disagreement with your extremely judgmental absolutist views against ALL religion, and even all "spirituality."

I certainly have a right to condemn all religion and even all mysticism, or "spirituality" as you euphemize. I have given ample objective and verifiable justification for my position, unlike you. Furthermore, just because you consider the judgment to be extreme hardly makes it so. The religious judgment imposed on so-called sinners thrown into hell is extreme. My judgment is quite moderate in comparison.

As far as I know you never did answer me. Where is you gratitude directed Dan ?

When I respond line by line you complain about that. When I fail to respond to every batshit crazy thing you say, you complain about that too. Pick a lane.

Once can be appreciative about life without being grateful to some imaginary being. Appreciation does not need to be directed.

I still say you are an arrogant prick.

That is because you are an idiot who thinks that anyone who can prove your wrong on something objective is arrogant. This is simply your own ego trying to defend itself by hypocritically calling other arrogant. It's a common flaw in your species.

I may very well be an arrogant prick, but there is nothing in my writings here that would imply that. I have relied solely upon verifiable facts and indisputable logic to make my case. There is nothing more humble than to submit to scientific and mathematical analysis for these are objective and cannot be commandeer for political purposes.

So I suggest that your false perception of me being arrogant is simply indicative that you are a bigot who thinks that smart equals arrogant. This kind of bigotry is of course harmful to society and the cause of many problems in America.

wthrfrk80 says

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

Dan8267 says

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

But isn't rape a biological phenomenon, controlled ultimately by the laws of physics? Same with your laundry list of crimes commited by the church? If those people don't have free choice, they are like broken machines that need "fixing". They are victims of the laws of physics acting in their brains.

1. Your questions do not address the discussion to which you are replying. You asserted that we should accept religion simply because it exists. This assertion is clearly disproven by the pointing out the fact that rape exists and we don't accept it, but rather we fight to prevent and stop it.

2. Whether or not free will exists is irrelevant to the question of policy making. Congress does not debate on free will when making policies. Judges do not rule on metaphysics when sentencing.

I take it from your quote above that you do believe in the existence of evil, and thus the existence of some kind of absolute, objective, morality. But can you back up your belief with some kind of scientific experiment? I'm only holding you to your own standards...

1. Yes, evil does exist in that humans are capable of performing evil actions. Evil is not a red guy with a beard and horns.
2. The existence of evil actions does not imply absolute morality. Morality can be objective, but objective and absolute do not mean the same thing. However, your desire to have absolute morality gets to the real reason why people like you want there to be a god. Without a god, you can't justify that there is an absolute morality and therefore cannot cram your morality down other people's throats.

3. Yes, I can justify my beliefs on morality with plenty of scientific experiments. I'll do that when I write my rant on the nature of morality. It's not relevant to this thread and is a big enough discussion on its own.

Unless I misunderstand Dan8267, he is asserting that belief systems are ultimately the result of physics / chemistry in the brain, and are thus a physical phenomenon.

Everything about your mind is implemented entirely by your brain. This is common knowledge. Every thought you ever had -- both of them -- and every emotion you've ever had -- including so-called "spiritual experiences" -- have occurred entirely inside your brain. Every memory you have, every opinion you have, every moral you have exists as neurological connections in your brain. If this seems implausible to you, it is simply because you do not understand how incredible a human brain is, even, and I never thought I'd say this, yours.

Dan8267 says

Rights trump morality

Can that be proven scientifically, or is that just your opinion?

And isn't the statement "right trump morality" a moral assertion?

Principles are not scientific questions. The statement "rights trump morality" is an assertion of principle not morality and it is based on the philosophy of Western Civilization which I have justified above and will repeat below. If you disagree with my justification, feel free to argue against it.

Rights trump morality. If they didn't, it would be legal for any crackpot to kill people the crackpot thought was being immoral including, but hardly limited to:

1. Abortion clinic bombings.
2. Hanging African Americans from trees
3. Baking Jews alive.
4. Forcing women pregnant with interracial or disabled children to get abortions.
5. Forced sterilization of the poor.

And yes, all of these things have happened. All but #3 have happened in the United States.

Rights trump morality.

Bap33: right, that's my point. Who is Dan to say what is good and evil?

Every human being has to decide what is good and evil. It is beneficial that people openly and honestly discuss the subject of good and evil. I have never said that what I call good and evil is absolute and not open for discussion. That is what religion does and that is one of many reasons that religion is bad. It prevents honest adult conversations about morality. And given that society and technology has advanced so much over the past 100 years, it is important that society does openly discuss moral issues and how they apply in the modern age.

Now there are plenty of things I have said in this thread and others. Things like:

1. I have disproved all variations of SMG.
2. I have shown that CMG isn't really a god by monotheist standards.
3. If your religion contradicts science or history, then your religion is wrong.
4. Religion has done more harm than good including some of the worst atrocities in history.
5. All religion is bad because religions are hierarchical power structures based on mysticisms. Power corrupts and mysticism prevents rational thought, opposition, and transparency. Put the two together and you have a recipe for disaster.
6. Mysticism or its euphemism "spirituality", although not as dangerous as religion, is still bad for it prevents rational thought and discussion.
7. People who are intelligent and knowledgeable tend to become atheistic because they do not need to resort to mysticism to explain life or the universe. The natural explanations are more than sufficient and are beautiful in themselves. The more rational and knowledgeable a person is, the more he realizes that there is no justification for believing in any god.

Of course, I have gone into great detail about why each of those things is true. And I have presented the arguments as objectively as possible and with great evidence and clear reasoning. My opposition has yet to offer a shred of evidence that

1. Any god exists.
2. Religion hasn't committed atrocities. Christianity in particular hasn't committed atrocities.
3. Evolution is incorrect.
4. The scientific method is flawed.
5. Religion is necessary or even helpful for
a. Discussions of morality.
b. Living a moral life.

Instead my opposition has made false arguments like Stalin massacred people because he was an atheist. And I have rebutted every one of these false arguments. My opposition has never answered my rebuttals for when they cannot defend their ridiculous arguments as there is no defense for falsehoods.

I think we can stick a fork in this thread, as it's done.

65

freak80 2012 Jan 16, 12:57am

If you don't believe that Christ is literally god and literally rose from the dead three days after dying, then you're not a Christian. It's pretty much a deal killer if you take everything in the Bible including the resurrection as metaphoric. Yeah, Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, that was a metaphor meaning that if you live a good life your ideas will live on. If that's the case, you're as atheistic as I am and Christianity is just a philosophy, not a religion

Dan: We agree on this point! Let's have a beer together.

66

freak80 2012 Jan 16, 1:17am

This assertion is clearly disproven by the pointing out the fact that rape exists and we don't accept it, but rather we fight to prevent and stop it.

Right, we don't accept rape. And maybe we shouldn't accept religion either. Point taken.

My question is: why are some things acceptable, and other things not? Is there some scientific way to "prove" rape is wrong? I agree with you fully that rape is wrong. But I can't prove it scientifically. Or at least, I don't know how to prove it scientifically. I'm not aware of anyone else who's been able to prove it scientifically. Maybe you are smarter than the rest of us and can prove it scientifically.

Maybe my belief that rape is wrong is based on social consensus and groupthink? Maybe if I was raised in an isolated tribe that believed rape was ok I would have a different belief? (I'm not aware of any such tribe, I'm just asking a hypothetical question).

67

Dan8267 2012 Jan 16, 1:31am

My question is: why are some things acceptable, and other things not? Is there some scientific way to "prove" rape is wrong?

Science deals with facts, not opinions. Even if the opinions are universally accepted, and even if the opinions are principles, they aren't facts. Whether or not god exists is a matter of fact, not opinion. Whether or not rape is evil is a matter of opinion, not fact. Now whether or not rape is evil is a very particular and important kind of opinion; it is an assumption of principle, but an assumption nonetheless.

You have to either take rape is evil a priori, or have some other a priori principle that concludes with rape is evil. For example, everyone owns his/her own body and a violation of one's body rights is evil.

Not all philosophical questions are subjects of science. However, all philosophical frameworks must be internally consistent, consistent with all laws of mathematics and logic, and may not contradict known facts including ones derived from science. So there are limits on philosophy.

68

freak80 2012 Jan 16, 1:47am

Science deals with facts, not opinions. Even if the opinions are universally accepted, and even if the opinions are principles, they aren't facts. Whether or not god exists is a matter of fact, not opinion. Whether or not rape is evil is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I completely agree.

69

freak80 2012 Jan 16, 2:25am

every opinion you have, every moral you have exists as neurological connections in your brain

What makes your neurological connections (i.e. your opinions) any more valid than my neurological connections (i.e. my opinions)? Both are at the mercy of the laws of physics.

Without a god, you can't justify that there is an absolute morality and therefore cannot cram your morality down other people's throats.

Than why are you cramming YOUR morality down other people's throats? Be consistent with your own philosophy.

70

marcus 2012 Jan 16, 3:06am

When I respond line by line you complain about that. When I fail to respond to every batshit crazy thing you say, you complain about that too. Pick a lane.

Right. Unlike most of your out of context "responses," this was actually a direct question to you by name, which I repeated.

As for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant

That is because you are an idiot who thinks that anyone who can prove your wrong on something objective is arrogant.

Actually, in the interest of avoiding your childish pissing contest like style, I've never mentioned that I have a masters degree in Mathematics (from a group one university) and that I know a proof when I see one.

I've wasted far too much time on this already, but listen, even an informal proof has to be logically convincing. What you give is an emotion based "hand waving" argument.

And yes, your assertions are extreme

1) You assert there is no God, (a stronger position than you do not believe in God) even though belief in God is a belief you have no adult experience with. You therefore are not fit to even present a valid argument against something, when you don't know all of the forms it can take.

2) You thus limit your definition to what you believed when you were a child. This definition, and the definition that corresponds to a literal interpretation of the bible is that of fundamentalist Christians and children in mainstream religions. As far as I know, none of the most reputable institutions where priests and ministers are trained insist in taking everything in the bible literally as the word of God. That is they meet the secularists half way - acknowledging that the scriptures were written by men, but they believe that those men (usually) had divine inspiration.

That divinity in an adult view, is going to be something beyond comprehension, rather than a sky daddy that you so easily reject.

NOTE: I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS POSITION. Only noting that your proof that they are wrong is nothing more than an assertion from your your ego, at least as far as I can see.

Organized religion can not be analyzed independent of the evolution of civilization. You are correct about atrocities and, where humans used religion ( "God is on our side" ) as a justification for terrible actions. I agree with this, and with inherent problems with religion. But I see those as a reflection of where we are at in our social evolution, rather than a cause.

Furthermore,

- You do not and can not compare the harm done by belief in God and religion to the good done by religion. Another direct question: Can you acknowledge that anything good ever came from religion ?

- Your arguments assume that without religion, man would be more moral and ethical. For example you assume that if religions were to shrink to a level that the religious were an extreme minority in the world, that that would not be used by humans as we know them to be (in self interest), against those people.

Say there was small country with a lot of oil, and they were fundamentalists who believed that God was on their side, and we were 100% secularist (or better still atheist), believing we are enlightened morally and ethically and they are not, because they live under their dangerous delusions. Might that not be used to commit atrocities against them ?

Here, let me try to boil it down better.

The fact that there are atheist individuals who are morally and ethically superior to some "religious" individuals, is nothing like a proof that if all religion and all "spiritual beliefs" of all kinds were removed from humanity, that we would be better for it.

This is a belief, that you are very much entitled to have. But it is not anywhere close to being provable. This is why I have repeatedly said you are arrogant. This is the correct description, because you are not in fact an idiot (although I think you have some problems understanding context and complexity of the things you assert), in fact I'm sure you are very intelligent in many ways.

But your ego has you confused about the difference between wanting something to be true or subjectively being of the opinion that it is true, versus proving it to be true.

71

marcus 2012 Jan 16, 4:49am

Christians are not of one particular view. This is just among mainstream Protestants (which is unfortunately smaller than envanglical and fundamentalist).

A 2008 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that only 22 percent of the 7,500 mainline Christians surveyed said the Bible is God's Word and is to be interpreted as literally true, word for word. Thirty-eight percent thought that the Bible is God's Word but is not to be taken literally, word for word. Twenty-eight percent said the Bible was not the Word of God but was of human origin.[27]

72

freak80 2012 Jan 16, 5:42am

Christians are not of one particular view. This is just among mainstream Protestants (which is unfortunately smaller than envanglical and fundamentalist).

"Mainline Protestantism" was a radical break from the Christianity of the previous 1900 years. They don't take any of the historic creeds seriously. See "Christianity and Liberalism" by Machen. Mainline protestantism is very far from Christianity. I'm not going to say that's good or bad, but it's a fact.

73

marcus 2012 Jan 16, 7:55am

Mainstream protestants include Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists, northern Baptists, most Lutherans, and most Presbyterians, as well as some smaller denominations.

Where I come from Catholics and the these Protestant groups make up all of the Christians, and your claim that they are very far from Christianity doesn't make sense to me.

That is modern Christianity. What, in your view, do they have to be evangelical or fundamentalist to be "real Christians ?"

74

marcus 2012 Jan 16, 9:23am

Scientists are not somehow immune from corruption are they ?

MAybe. And this would explain why there are even any scientists who conclude global warming is unrelated to human activity.

I would think that corruption in the science word, would manifest as some deserving people and institutions not getting funding and far less deserving institutions getting funding (because of connections).

But also corporations who hire scientists for the express purpose of coming up with a conclusion they want. But then that isn't real science, and it's usually transparent.

75

Dan8267 2012 Jan 16, 12:53pm

What makes your neurological connections (i.e. your opinions) any more valid than my neurological connections (i.e. my opinions)?

The only things that can make an opinion invalid are the following:
1. Self-contradiction.
2. Contradiction with other opinions held by the person, including consequences of the opinion contradicting other opinions held by the same person.
3. The opinion is based on faulty information that if corrected would change that persons opinion.

Absent that one person's opinion isn't more valid than another. However, an opinion could be in conflict with the laws of the state and some opinions are certainly more sociable than others and more conductive for the long-term prosperity of all people in society.

Than why are you cramming YOUR morality down other people's throats? Be consistent with your own philosophy.

To what are you referring? Being an atheist isn't a moral issue but one of correctness. Accepting evolution is not a moral issue but acceptance of a scientific fact. Convincing others that religion has been destructive throughout history is perhaps motivated by my morals as well as my sense of self-preservation of our species, but it is grounded in fact.

As for the outrage I expressed at the state's activities in violating human rights including torturing people, yes you could say that is a moral issue, but it is also an issue of human rights, and it right for citizens to hold governments accountable to human and civil rights violation. I donâ€™t see what you are complaining about.

And certainly, people can and should debate moral issues to obtain greater enlightenment. What is wrong is forcing morality at the barrel of the gun, especially when it's false morality that thinly masks financial or political self-interest as in the case of the U.S. overthrowing Saddam.

To the Fabian socialists pushing their Gaia one-world religion on the rest of us here

What are you talking about? This guy?

I've never mentioned that I have a masters degree in Mathematics

Yeah, I'm confident enough to call bullshit on that. Your logical skills are simply too lacking for me to buy that you have a master's degree in mathematics. I'd test you on this, but whatever question I gave you, you could just look up online. Perhaps if we had a real-time chatâ€¦.

What you give is an emotion based "hand waving" argument.

No argument I have given is based on emotion. And quoting Wikipedia, as I have said many times, is a sign of intellectual laziness.

You assert there is no God,

I have never asserted that there is no god. If you were a mathematician, you would realize this. I've concluded that there is no god using only the various definitions of god accept in the real world. See all my previous threads.

even though belief in God is a belief you have no adult experience with. You therefore are not fit to even present a valid argument against something, when you don't know all of the forms it can take

What kind of dumb ass argument is that? A person isn't entitled to argue about the existence of god unless he has "an adult experience with god". So you can't argue about whether or not god exists unless your answer is yes. That's just plain retarded.

You thus limit your definition to what you believed when you were a child.

I thus limit my definition? I've entertained every definition of god, even the bullshit vague ones designed to avoid discussion.

Only noting that your proof that they are wrong is nothing more than an assertion from your your ego, at least as far as I can see.

If any of the proofs I have given are invalid, simply state the line that is invalid and why. This is what someone who actually has a MS in mathematics would do. But, of course, you cannot.

You do not and can not compare the harm done by belief in God and religion to the good done by religion

I have shown numerous examples of great harm done by religion as these facts are indisputable. However, one can also show the harm that irrational faith does on an individual level. It is impossible to cite specific examples and separate how much harm is done by religion as oppose to faith in god by itself because all theists belong to some religion and have been brainwashed by it.

Sure, I could give examples of parents whose children have died because the parents believed that they should trust in god's will to save their children. But do you blame that on faith or religion?

In the very least, faith does nothing good and empowers the manipulation of the masses by dictators and corrupt politicians and priests. Faith fuels religion, and that is horrible in itself. Even without religion, faith would do nothing good and probably lead people into making bad decisions and electing malevolent leaders.

Your arguments assume that without religion, man would be more moral and ethical.

I don't assume. I conclude. Religion has prevented mankind from discussing morality at an adult level for several thousand years. When the priest dictates morality from Bronze Age myths, there is no discussion. Without discussion there is no advancement. One only has to compare the achievements made in science versus those in the field of morality. There are no achievements in the field of morality.

Say there was small country with a lot of oil, and they were fundamentalists who believed that God was on their side, and we were 100% secularist (or better still atheist), believing we are enlightened morally and ethically and they are not, because they live under their dangerous delusions. Might that not be used to commit atrocities against them ?

Atheists did not promote the second U.S. Iraq War under GW Bush. In fact, as a population atheists were most against the war and most skeptical of the intentions of the Bush administration.

GW Bush was the one who referred to the war as "a crusade" and stated "god told me to invade Iraq". 'nuff said. Your attempts to rewrite history through fantasies have no weight.

The fact that there are atheist individuals who are morally and ethically superior to some "religious" individuals, is nothing like a proof that if all religion and all "spiritual beliefs" of all kinds were removed from humanity, that we would be better for it.

This is a straw man argument, not an argument I have made. The argument I make is that reasoning, not mythology, should be the basis of morality. The best moral guidelines are always written by those who rationally approach the problems of social living by attempting to understand the problems and find all possible solutions and then compare the solutions to find the optimal ones. Religion is incapable of doing this because it takes away power from the high ranking mystics and reduces morality to a subject that all people may contribute to, sort of like astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and every other science. The last thing the high ranking mystics want is to be out of a job.

your ego

Keep beating off that dead horse.

Oh, and since you've been such a petulant arse, Marcus, kindly answer the question: Would you kiss Hank's ass?

true science is 100% compatible with the Bible.

I take it that you are being sarcastic, right?

Everyone here most likely agrees that the govts., banks etc. are out of control with corruption, no? Scientists are not somehow immune from corruption are they ?

If you're corrupt, which would you rather do?

1. Make millions of dollars a year by legally steal money from people as a banker or politician. Then you get fuck two different hot chicks every night in your Ferrari.

2. Make $20,000 a year doing the hardest fucking math and research of your life and spend your Friday nights watching the Discovery channel because no one dates science nerds.

Yeah, I'd say that people who enter science are a lot less corrupt than those who enter banking or politics. They may not be perfect, but no one enters the field of science for money or pussy.

The earth is clearly older than 6000 years by a longshot. The seventh day is 6ooo years long and counting, so logically the other 6 "days" are longer than 24 hour days. The Bible does not specify how long they were.

Oh, so a day is not a day. Then why call it a day and why say the world was created in six days if the term "day" has no meaning. What's the point of using an undefined term of time in a description of the creation of the world? And why are all the details wrong like light being created for stars and plants coming into existence before the sun?

Christ, the Twilight movies make more sense.

However, the mountains were not as tall in 2370 B.C. The force that the flood waters exerted on the flexing crust, caused the land masses to heave up.
That is why the tallest mountain range, the Himalayas, is also the youngest mountain range, and getting taller.

This is why people need to put down the Bible and pick up a book on plate tectonics or watch the Discovery Channel. The Himalayas formed by the land mass of India crashing into Asia 50 million years ago. The movement of India and all other land masses is driven by plate tectonics, which in turn is powered by the heat of Earth's cores, not some flood.

That is why fossils of sea creatures are found EVERYWHERE.

Fossils of sea creatures are not found everywhere. They are found in deserts that used to be the bottom of lakes, seas, rivers, and other bodies of water. A swamp can turn into a desert or vice-versa over the course of tens of millions of years.

76

marcus 2012 Jan 16, 2:01pm

Yeah, I'm confident enough to call bullshit on that. Your logical skills are simply too lacking for me to buy that you have a master's degree in mathematics.

I'm sure Patrick or someone else could act in a fiduciary capacity and we can bet any amount you would like, as long as it is at least $1000 (make it worth my while, and the embarrassment that I already feel.)

marcus says

You assert there is no God,

I have never asserted that there is no god. If you were a mathematician, you would realize this. I've concluded that there is no god using only the various definitions of god accept in the real world.

wtf ?

Okay, so we dissagree on what God means and what it can mean. This is my point when I say you are asserting the nonexistence of something, based on the definition you choose which is not representative of most adult Christians I know. (and yes since it's outside your experience - you don't know what it is you are proving).

We are repeating ourselves.

If any of the proofs I have given are invalid, simply state the line that is invalid and why. This is what someone who actually has a MS in mathematics would do. But, of course, you cannot.

I have not done this more because you never even begin to prove what you say you do (you wave your hands and say "I've proved it").

I have done my best to drill down to the flaws in your reasoning. I have even acknowledged that if you want to narrowly define GOd in a childlike/fundamentalist way, than your assertion makes more sense, but even then you can't prove it.

And your "proof" in this very limited definition after stripping away all the tangential empty assertions boils down to:

"It's so far fetched that I don't have to prove the nonexistence, just like I don't have to prove that Leprechauns don't exist." There, "my proof is essentially that I don't have to prove it." wtf ?

Okay so more than 80% of Americans beleive in something that is so fantastically imaginary and you can prove it's false based primarily on how far fetched it is. (wave your hands some more here).

I gave you what was not your argument, but my substiutution for your totally nonexistant argument when I said:

The fact that there are atheist individuals who are morally and ethically superior to some "religious" individuals, is nothing like a proof that if all religion and all "spiritual beliefs" of all kinds were removed from humanity, that we would be better for it.

To which you say:Dan8267 says

This is a straw man argument, not an argument I have made. The argument I make is that reasoning, not mythology, should be the basis of morality. The best moral guidelines are always written by those who rationally approach the problems of social living by ............

Okay, but is the world better off or not without religion or spritiuality ?And if so why ?

??What, just because you fantasize that everyone will:

rationally approach the problems of social living by attempting to understand the problems and find all possible solutions and then compare the solutions to find the optimal ones.

How do you prove this is what happens in the absence of religion and all "spirituality?"

You don't think they will find ways to obfuscate issues to have the solutions reflect their self interests ? Human collective intelligence doesn't magically sky rocket up when you remove spirituality.

You need to be back on ignore, but first please let me know whether you have the balls to put your money where you mouth is - although as the teenager in your parents basement, I know that you could never do that. You have said I lack integrity. Why don't you show a little integrity and backbone, and put some money where your mouth is ?

I promise you I will do it.

OH, but I get it, asserting someone lacks logic skills (just like Shrek) is a substitute for a real argument.

edit (this is well worth repeating):

your ego has you confused about the difference between wanting something to be true or subjectively being of the opinion that it is true, versus proving it to be true.

I seem to recall you repeatedly saying things such as, "I'm the kind of person who admits when they are wrong.....this isn't about me winning.....I'm a computer programmer....see here's some of my code...you probably don't even understand it.....let me clarify quantum mechanics for you, I know it's a little off the subject....I seek the truth through reasoning...."

I understand what your opinion is, but you have no idea what it means to prove something.

77

marcus 2012 Jan 16, 11:25pm

Dan, why don't you change it to "I have a well thought out rationale for my opinion/beliefs, which I would be happy to share."

Instead, you claim to have "proof." This was an error, that you do not have enough integrity to admit.

78

Dan8267 2012 Jan 16, 11:27pm

...

Marcus, as you are only repeating yourself instead of addressing all the points I have made or saying anything new, there is not point in me repeating myself. Simply read all my prior posts on this thread and others. I have already addressed everything you said.

79

Dan8267 2012 Jan 17, 1:01am

the context abundantly defines the term

It doesnâ€™t quite answer my question of why the Bible even talks about there being six days of creation and one day of rest is day is some ambiguous measurement of time.

Here's the real reason the Bible talks about a seven day period. Long before the Bible was written, man looked up at the sky and saw seven celestial bodies that were significantly different from all the stars. They were: the sun, the moon, the Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. These are the only heavenly objects that you can see with the naked eye that are different from all the exo-solar stars. And guess what? There are exactly seven of them.

Because of this seven became a holy, magic number. This is how people in ancient Middle East and southern Europe thought about the universe. They thought numbers were magical. This isn't something we modern people take seriously, but the ancients certainly did.

Because of these seven celestial objects, there are seven days in the week starting with "Sun" day and "Moon" day. Christ, it's right in the names Sunday and Monday. The last day of the week is "Saturn" day or Saturday. The other days names got corrupted by various mythologies, but you get the point.

The week is a purely artificial time unit. The year is based upon the amount of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the sun. The day is based on the apparent rising of the sun, which is due to Earth's rotation and revolution (sidereal time). The seven-day week, however, is based entirely on the ancient astronomical observation that there were seven different things visible in the sky to the naked eye. If you could see Uranus without a telescope, we'd have an eight-day week with your god resting on the eight.

[Note to all gigglers: Don't try to look at your anus through a telescope. First of all, it's anatomically impossible.]

Rather than looking in the Bible for the reasons we do things, you should look at the actual historical context, which is so much wider than the Bible. The Bible says its god created the world in six days and rested on the seventh simply because the seven-day week was already an ancient unit of measurement by the time the Bible was written. The Biblical writers were simply rewriting history to accommodate existing culture into their religion. It was a marketing ploy, plain and simple. And it worked. Till this day, people like you fall for it.

While we're discussing the issue of time, I might as well go over the 24-hour day. The ancients looked up in the night sky and divided it into twelve parts -- holy fuck, 12 is another holy number, gee, I wonder why? -- identified by 12 constellations called the 12 signs of the zodiac. Since these constellations appear to move as the Earth rotates, they divided the night into 12 units of time.

On average, day and night are equally long. So if you have 12 units of time for night, you should have 12 units of time for day, hence a total of 24 units. Christ almighty! That's the number of hours in a day! Coincidence? No. That's why we have a 24-hour day.

Since the hour is a long period of time, the ancients then divided it into smaller units. Base 60 was a popular numeric system because it makes integer arithmetic easy. 60 is divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60. That's awfully convenient when you don't have a calculator.

So the ancients divided the hour into units of 1/60th called "minute parts of an hour" or minutes. And that's where the word minute as a time unit comes from.

As the minute is still somewhat large, the ancients further divided the hour into "minute parts of the second order" or seconds, which are 1/(60^2) of an hour, hence the term seconds. If the ancients wanted to divide seconds into smaller parts, they would have formed the unit of time "thirds" which would have been 1/60th of a second.

See, it all makes sense if you know the history. Nothing makes sense if you get your history lesson from the Bible. The Bible isn't a historical text. It rewrites history. And the real history is far more interesting.

Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first â€œday,â€ but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see.

Ugh. [In best Darth Vader voiceâ€¦] I find your lack of knowledge disturbing.

As I explained to Bap33â€¦

Bap33 says

Where is the moon from?

The moon formed when a planet hit Earth Mark I and destroyed both planets. From the debris of both planets formed Earth Mark II (the planet you are standing on) and the Earth's moon. The lesser dense material became the moon and the heavier material became Earth Mark II. Again, this is now well known and is easily researched on the Internet.

So you see, the amount of time it would take for light from the moon to reach the Earth was less than a second. When Earth Mark II and the moon were created by gravity, they were a lot closer than they are today and today the moon is only 1.35278483 light seconds away at its furthest. That means it only takes light 1.35278483 seconds to travel from the moon to the Earth. So nothing you are saying about the creation of the solar system makes sense.

Seriously dude, start watching PBS's Nova and the History Channel's The Universe. You'll learn a lot.

Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb.

This is also factually wrong. Nuclear synthesis was long underway in the sun before Earth Mark I formed and certainly before Earth Mark II formed. Again, when your religion contradicts science or history, your religion is wrong.

Plate tectonic theory broadly states that oceanic forces are in play, as well as the heat of earth's core. You left the part about the oceans out. Why?

Because the oceans have nothing to do with the absurd hypothesis that an alleged flood that took place a few thousand years ago are responsible for the formation of the Himalayas. The fact is the Himalayas are far too ancient. As I stated, they started forming 50 million years ago, well before humans came into existence.

Furthermore, a mere flood does nothing to increase the weight of the ocean or the forces the ocean puts on plates. And the oceanic effects on plate tectonics particularly in regards to the formation of the Himalayas are also spread over tens of millions of years, which hardly supports the notion that the Himalayas were formed by the Biblical flood or came after them. Put simply, there is no flood in human history that wiped out all land on the Earth. It's a made up story.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000241/00001

wrong ... look at the cartoon at the top of this thread. Marine fossils and seashells are found everywhere, even on the highest mountains. The cartoon admits that.

Don't take cartoons literally. The purpose of a political cartoon is to make a political point, not to be a reference source for scientific facts.

Marine fossils are found in places that had water at one time. They are not haphazardly and evenly distributed all over the Earth. Furthermore, the specific species of the fossils indicate the environmental conditions at the time of fossilization, which is what tells paleontologists whether the body of water was a fresh water lake or part of the ocean, what the temperature of the water was, what kind of nutrients there were, how long ago the body of water existed, and a host of other details. Paleontology is a very precise science and most of the waterbeds are far older than mankind.

80

Dan8267 2012 Jan 17, 1:38am

Helisoma scalare is characteristic of the fresh-water beds

They will learn how to build a sustainable terrarium by adding a waterbed, mixing their own soil and transplanting a small plant into their terrarium.

http://www.talkingscience.org/2010/09/lilliputian-landscaping/

81

Dan8267 2012 Jan 17, 2:23am

to continue on correcting u Dan since your science is routinely wrong (or at least what i was taught as i got degrees in physics and astronomy)

Please provide citations to support your statements. I'll gladly correct any incorrect fact if scientific literature contradicts what I have said. However, I am not going to take the word of anyone on the Internet.

So please provide references. And don't use Wikipedia unless you want to make me laugh.

82

Dan8267 2012 Jan 17, 2:26am

started only SHORTLY before Earth finished accumulating mass.

It seems strange to me that an astrophysicist would say anything like this. Clearly, the Earth is still accumulating mass as debris is always falling onto it. There is not point in the timeline of history where the Earth stopped accumulating mass. This should be obvious to someone with a degree in both physics and astronomy.

Also, is it just me, or does it seem like everybody on the Internet just happens to have advanced degrees in whatever subject they happen to be debating at the time. If we're talking about fire, suddenly everybody is a full fledged NYC fire fighter.

83

Dan8267 2012 Jan 17, 4:51am

the next simplest reference is always Wikipedia

As I said, don't bother quoting Wikipedia unless you want me to laugh. No serious scientist would quote that source. For a proposition to be accepted by the science community, it must go through extensive peer review. Wikipedia is the opposite of science. As such, even mentioning Wikipedia as the basis for scientific fact is completely antithetical to the foundation of science and should be repugnant to anyone who takes science seriously.

Like
Jovain planet formation times
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004IAUS..202..167W
discussion of blowing solar wind pre-nuclear fusion
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&ARv...1..291A
and lead u all the wa

I asked for a citation to uphold your statements including "Leading theories would be what u call your Earth Mark I formed BEFORE nuclear synthesis began." I did not ask for random links to articles returned from a Google search of "planetary formation theory".

Discussions of modeling formation slide 16 gives basic time line
(U Texas Austin)
http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring09/scalo/secure/301Sp09.LectCh15Pt1.pdf

This is the only link relevant to the discussion of whether or not the Earth formed before or after the sun started shining. And it fully supports what I said. Take a look at the following slides (the third is the slide 16 you referenced). Notice that each slide confirms that nuclear synthesis took place before the Earth Mark I formed and is in fact the very reason that the inner planets are rocky. Point, match, game.

But why stop there? Here's a video of a BBC documentary in which Bill Hartmann, the man who came up with the now accepted moon formation theory, describes the theory in detail. Notice that everything I said is confirmed by this video, straight from the horse's mouth. Can I get any more authoritative? Of course, someone who relies on Wikipedia wouldn't understand what a real reference is.

Compare what the video says to what I wrote and you'll see I'm pretty fucking accurate in my details. Perhaps you shouldn't call someone's bluff when they aren't bluffing.

Also, notice that big shinning sun in the background of the video rendering the formation of Earth Mark II? Yeah, the sun came first.

But what about Earth Mark I? Here's a another wonderful video showing the formation of Earth Mark I from the BBC documentary The Power of the Planet. Notice again, nice shiny sun in background. That sunlight comes from nuclear fusion.

So both your references and mine confirm everything I said.

FYI Dan i know its off topic, but tidal locking doesn't cause (and isn't caused by) the "dense" side of the Moon to point towards the earth. In fact the heavier side of the Moon actually points AWAY from the earth. Tidal locking is caused by the torque induced in the systems as the gravitational bulge changes during orbit.

Agreed. For more, see Why Doesn't the Moon Rotate? However, getting this one detail wrong hardly invalidates everything else I said. What is does show is that I'm willing to admit to error when one is pointed out. Good find.

I still stand by everything else I have said.

wikipedia can show u that or do u need real journal articles becasue wiki summarizes them to simply for u?

I need "real journal articles" because Wikipedia is full of lies and deliberately misleading information. That's the problem with a pseudo-populist source controlled by corporations, governments, and other organizations with a self-interest in controlling popular opinion for their own gains. Only fools trust Wikipedia.

he did address your points just not to enough of your liking becasue each statement isn't sourced with research. you do the same thing but its aparently valid, see

Marcus makes conjectures that have no evidence to support them. I make statements that are well supported and almost always reference them. If I'm explaining an entire subject matter, I don't reference every single sentence. But if I say anything that is contested, even by a fool like Marcus, I back it up with support. That's the difference.

And as I have just shown with the above video links, even when I give background information on a subject matter without copy-n-pasting from a source, I'm pretty damn accurate.

84

Dan8267 2012 Jan 17, 4:59am