Atheism

@Germlat,

Sorry, I really don't understand your post? I was talking to Herald - have you crossed wires?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Sorry, I really don't understand your post? I was talking to Herald - have you crossed wires?

You'd have to read the entire post....sorry I intruded. I viewed it as relevant.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

rather than rant on a pissy Internet forum in the wrong topic.

The topic is 'Atheism', which means 'the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (any other ILFs except for the ours)', the main idea of which is to convince the public that there is no God for 'we know how the Big Bang theory has created everything'.

hingehead wrote:

You seem somewhat apoplectic on this.

Can you quote exactly the words/phrases/statements that I made, evidencing my 'relation to apoplexy'. I am not the one expressing my anger and fury by writing in boldface, or by peppering ad homs at everyone who is not professing my beliefs ... comprising that we are most probably missing key information to make grand conclusions about our origin and the origin of the Universe.

hingehead wrote:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05329.htm

With that references you start looking just like FM. Why don't you simply say what you think about that one (taken from the reference you are giving), for example:

Quote:

At the Big Bang and for several parts of a second afterwards, the physical laws of the Universe did not apply as they do now.

What I think is that if the physical laws can be applied in some cases (when we like), and are not to be applied in some other cases (when it is inconvenient to us) one starts wondering what is the definition of physical laws?

hingehead wrote:

That cosmic background radiation was mathematically inferred before there was a Big Bang theory, let alone a way to detect them seems pretty cool to me.

What is even cooler is that you have no evidences that the CMB is thermal radiation at all (it might be instrument error as a result of the blue shift in the present day particles). The assumption that it is 'left over from the Big Bang' might be fake - there are no direct evidences that the red shift in the light spectrum is related to any explosion ... let alone creating 3D space out of whatever. Besides that claiming that 'CMB is the oldest light in the Universe' supposes that the Universe in its different parts has different age. Can you understand what does that mean: the South pole of the Earth, for example, has different geological age from the North Pole ... owing to the Big Bang - and it doesn't matter whether it is microseconds or picoseconds. What is more - the South pole 'is expanding' faster (or slower) that the North pole owing to the Big Bang. Your room is expanding, your computer is expanding (or shrinking if it remains fixed and only the space is expanding) - do you really believe in all that. If you apply the differential time to the Universe - the 'center of the Universe' (if exists) is at the age of 13.68 billion years, and 'the edges' (if any) are at the age of time zero - just borne, etc.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Either your English sucks, or our conprehension is poor.

For what it's worth, Webster's Dictionary backs Germlat up. According to it, one definition of the term institution is, "a custom, practice, or law that is accepted and used by many people". Science is a practice that is accepted and used by many people. So in this sense, it's an institution.

2 Replies

@Herald,

And this is where you're screwing up

Quote:

The topic is 'Atheism', which means 'the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (any other ILFs except for the ours)', the main idea of which is to convince the public that there is no God for 'we know how the Big Bang theory has created everything'.

A) Atheism definitely does not deny the possible existence of ILFs (why would you make that up?)

B) Atheism certainly isn't relying the Big Bang Theory to deny the existence of God - if BBT was proven false I'd be happy to drop it - but I won't be dropping my atheism until I meet a god.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I agree with the use of 'institution' in many ways including the 'institution of marriage' which is based on custom and practice. However, at least to me, the "institute of science" seems to apply to some educational 'institution' with all its trappings of land and buildings - such as "Carnagie Institute of Science.'

Quote:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science has many disciplines with varying degree of sub-disciplines from computer science, agriculture, psychology, geology, paleontology, the cosmos, philosophy, physics, and possibly thousands of topics which can be considered "science."

I just don't 'see' the institution for science.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

That is a case of shoehorning the term science into a definition of institution. Science as usually practiced could be considered an institution, but i've lready pointed out that science can be pursued by those who don't follow a set of customary practices. The definition which you have used, and to which Germlat has already referred is stretched to cover the concept of science to the point at which it is essentially meaningless. People can, and throughout history have contributed to the body of knowledge called science without following customary practices, and without being members of any professional organizations. Tycho Brahe provided systematic observations of celestial bodies, and those observations were crucial to Kepler and Gallileo. Brahe also believed in astrology and a geocentric model for the universe which was just the ptolemaic model redux. Getting drunk all afternoon, pigging out until one passed out and then getting up in the nighttime to observe the celestial bodies is hardly a model for scientific research--it worked for Brahe, though.

Brahe is not the only example of a gifted amateur who rose to the dignity of "scientist" because of the value of his work. You do not participate in the institution of marriage unless you follow the laws that govern it. No such laws govern the practice of science. (Although blowing up your barn on a regular basis may get you in trouble with local authorities, it won't because you violated laws which govern the practice of science.) Germlat has been relentlessly trying to force science into that definition, which refers to customary practices. Science can be practiced, and usefully practiced, without adherence to any customary guidelines. Science is the ultimate example of the principle of "if it works . . . "

1 Reply

@Germlat,

Why don't you shove that "arts major" horseshit up your prissy, anal retentive ass, you arrogant, conceited bitch. You don't know what i studied at university because i have refused to play that snotty game with you.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Even your insults are more sophisticated than mine.

1 Reply

I do try to entertain . . .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Why don't you shove that "arts major" horseshit up your prissy, anal retentive ass, you arrogant, conceited bitch. You don't know what i studied at university because i have refused to play that snotty game with you.

You can't seem to take anyone else having an ego. You are but an emotionally challenged boy with a severe case of oral e. colitis , who simply cannot take losing an argument. Feel free to correct my grammar and punctuation( I find that's when a good secretary comes in handy). If you're good enough, I might even hire you! But-- only if you have a master's degree.
(Snooty Germlat exits the room in her Russian sable fur and Chanel shoes)

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

Even your insults are more sophisticated than mine.

Wipe that brown stain off your nose...it's most unbecoming .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Getting drunk all afternoon, pigging out until one passed out and then getting up in the nighttime to observe the celestial bodies is hardly a model for scientific research--it worked for Brahe, though.

Oh yes it is --- because of the part about getting up in the nighttime and observing the celestial bodies. At work, Brahe followed the rules that govern the practice of science --- repeatable experiments, refutable theories, peer review, and all that. What he did off the clock is irrelevant to science being an institution, and Brahe being a part of it.

1 Reply

@Germlat,

I can take it, i just don't have to refrain from pointing it out to you. You are the one who has "lost" the argument. Your ego cannot make institution mean what you want to claim it means, regardless of your conceits about your wardrobe.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Brahe's cosmological model was deeply flawed, and flew in the face of the trend then taking hold toward a heliocentric model. None of his work was peer-reviewed. The alleged "institution" of science had no such process at the time. His belief in astrology was unexceptional at that time--and that's because there was not in fact any such institution. Can you please list the repeatable experiments which Brahe authored?

In fact, science can be practiced by those who get it completely wrong, for all the right reasons. Boyle proposed that there was a luminiferous aether which conducted light over interstellar distances. Huygens proposed that light has wave properties, while Newton proposed that it had particle properties. The debate continued for a long time with people taking sides for the aether, for particle properties and for wave properties. All sides claimed that they had observable data supporting their various hypotheses. As late as the 1860s, Clerk-Maxwell was proposing a solution which combined the "aether" with solid matter. It was only when the Morley-Michelson experiment was conducted, and replicated many times, that the aether hypothesis was finally debunked. Einstein in his first paper, which was on optics (which he did not publish until he also published his paper on special relativity--leading many to assume it was the second paper he had written) ignored the aether position, and held that light has both wave and particle properties. So, in the end, a clerk in a Swiss patent office, who was not a student nor an academic, provided the solution to a long-running controversy.

It is not unreasonable to say that the investigation of scientific matters is often carried out by institutions. That does not make science itself an institution, certainly not by the definition upon which you and Germlat have been leaning. There are no customary laws or practices governing scientific investigation, which would be necessary for that definition to apply. It is entirely possible that someone would get it right for all the wrong reasons, too.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I can take it, i just don't have to refrain from pointing it out to you. You are the one who has "lost" the argument. Your ego cannot make institution mean what you want to claim it means, regardless of your conceits about your wardrobe.

Conceits about my wardrobe ...here's another thing you don't get: sarcasm. Simply because you are incapable of admitting defeat doesn't mean you've won the argument .

2 Replies

@Germlat,

Quote:

@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I can take it, i just don't have to refrain from pointing it out to you. You are the one who has "lost" the argument. Your ego cannot make institution mean what you want to claim it means, regardless of your conceits about your wardrobe.

Conceits about my wardrobe ...here's another thing you don't get: sarcasm. Simply because you are incapable of admitting defeat doesn't mean you've won the argument .

I agree with set on this issue. Institution implies some formal policies or practice. Anyone can perform experiments that can be defined as science.

Science includes all the subjects that has to do with our environment whether it includes the physical or social. Science is a process by which we seek to determine what our environment is all about whether it's physical or social. Even theories are subject to further investigation and confirmation.

It's a process, not an institution.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I can take it, i just don't have to refrain from pointing it out to you. You are the one who has "lost" the argument. Your ego cannot make institution mean what you want to claim it means, regardless of your conceits about your wardrobe.

Conceits about my wardrobe ...here's another thing you don't get: sarcasm. Simply because you are incapable of admitting defeat doesn't mean you've won the argument .

I agree with set on this issue. Institution implies some formal policies or practice. Anyone can perform experiments that can be defined as science.

Science includes all the subjects that has to do with our environment whether it includes the physical or social. Science is a process by which we seek to determine what our environment is all about whether it's physical or social. Even theories are subject to further investigation and confirmation.

It's a process, not an institution.

Number agreement, ci. Someone who considers himself to be "above average" in the usage of the English language should have learned "number agreement" in fifth or sixth grade...if you got that far.

The "whether it's physical or social' should be considered an assault on the language.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Atheism definitely does not deny the possible existence of ILFs (why would you make that up?

Deity (if exists) would be some alien life - beings that are far more complex than humans and that are friendly to us and are willing to communicate with us and help us eventually (which has never been proven - that God is willing to help us ... because we are very smart and beautiful, perhaps). Hence, by professing atheism you implicitly reject the belief in the existence of ILFs that are more intelligent than us and that are not hostile to us. Thus in your atheistic worldview remain only ILFs that are hostile and/or that are more stupid than us (which is very difficult to be achieved). You believe that only dull and aggressive ILFs can exist and can visit or try to establish contact with us.
A more stupid than us ILF should either had self-destroyed itself already, or would never be able to jump over the energy constraints of its own planet, let alone to establish contact with another ILFs ... on the other side of the Universe.

hingehead wrote:

Atheism certainly isn't relying the Big Bang Theory to deny the existence of God

It is exactly what it is doing ... all the time. The BBT is so fake that it exists exclusively because it provides trumps in the hands of Science against Religion - who will be able to manipulate better and/or to brainwash the society.

hingehead wrote:

if BBT was proven false I'd be happy to drop it

If you 'drop' both the belief in the BBT and the belief in God, you will remain inevitably without any explanation of the creation of the world ... and something else will most probably take up that place, for it cannot stay empty for too long.

hingehead wrote:

... but I won't be dropping my atheism until I meet a god.

Atheism is constitutional right of freedom of religion. If you belief that the laws of physics can be applied to some processes and are inapplicable to some others this is called belief in the Big Bang despite of the glaring evidences.
BTW, how do you expect 'to meet God' if He is in another dimension, for example ... or at several billion light years away from us ... or 'on the other side of the gravitational continuum'?

1 Reply

@Germlat,

Blah, blah, blah . . . woof, woof. Have fun. Given your illusory belief that you"ve "won," you should enjoy yourself. Science is not an institution, and none of your blather has made such a case.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know