Hy!!! :D:D:D

Hehehehehe... :D:D

Ok... First, let's analize what's mysticism and what's science.

Mysticism

*Mysticism: What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's sense and one's reason. Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.
Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality--other than the one in which we live--whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.*Ayn Rand

Science

1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5.
Science Christian Science.

Christian Science...? :D:D

Well... let's go to the subject... ;)

Science is made through observation, identification, experimental investigation with EVIDENCE, isn't it? Ok... Now... Tell me...

Where's the EVIDENCE for parallel Universes!?!?!?!? :D

There's a book called "In the Beginning: After COBE and Before the Big Bang" wrote by John Gibbrin in 1993. He offers a popularized version of an article called: "Classical and Quantum Gravity".

In this books he asks us to accept the following things:
[list=a]
Earth is a living organism
galaxy is a living organism
universe is a living organism
our universe was once a baby universe
our universe is seeding baby universes
the purpose of the whole exercise is not to creat human beings
[/list=a]

All this to make us an accidental bi-product of creating universes...

Is that Mysticism?

Love,
Nelson

Truthseeker

You have once again breached the boundaries of incomprehension. Your ability to reach new heights of ignorance is matched only by your inability to string together words and form meaningful thoughts. The depth of your intellectual prowess leaves one wanting to pierce their eyes with long sharp needles and chew on a ball of tinfoil.

After reading your words of wisdom, I long to forever join that which is the sputum in the toilet bowl of life. Thank you for the unending drivel which I will cherish and hold dear to me. It will always remind me of rolling naked in a field of broken glass.

Your biggest fan
Q

...Ok, to add a little fuel to the oil, here's another one for ya...

Parallel Universes! And in every single one of them, there is a you, another you, excisting at the very same moment!!!

Hey, what can I say? I'm marked as psychosomatic (?), irrational and so on already, so I have the right to spread my psychotic thoughts on the boards.

Or do have I to be banned from the boards, too?!

a.Earth is a living organism

- Yes, as are all the other Planets.

b.galaxy is a living organism

- Yes, as are all the other galaxies.

c.universe is a living organism

- Univers(s) and galaxie(s) mean one and the same. :)

d.our universe was once a baby universe

- No, our Universe is as old as the other Universes, much older then humanity thinks.

e.our universe is seeding baby universes

- No, that's not true. Our Universe is connected to other Universes through "dimensional portals", by lack of a better word to explain it. This thread should be in Pseudo Science, TruthSeeker. :)

the purpose of the whole exercise is not to creat human beings

Exactly! not to create human beings, it creates Beings in general and the human race got the ability to talk billions of years ago. That they made a big mess, using this ability, oh well, what can I say? I am just a psychot and an irrational Being.

"Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up!!!"

I bet your "biggest fan", the dear Q, will have a rational and evidential "reply" on this. So come on Q, let the "irrational" get a good portion of your skepticism again.

Sorry, if I made a sarcastic reply TruthSeeker, I couldn't resist here. Was just reading and came on to this thread, by accident... How irrational of me...:rolleyes:

Such ideas as parallel universes and heaps of extra dimensions are, to me, pure fantasy. They look goog on paper, but have no relation to the real world; the same as many ghost stories.

Miraculous you call it babe, you ain't seen nothing yet
They've got Pepsi in the Andes, McDonalds in Tibet
Yosemite's been turned into a golf course for the Japs
The Dead Sea is alive with rap
Between the Tigris and Euphrates, there's a leisure centre now
They've got all kinds of sports, they've got Bermuda shorts
They had sex in Pennsylvania
A Brazilian grew a tree
A doctor in Manhattan, saved a dying man for free
It's a miracle

Another Miracle
By the grace of God Almighty and the pressures of the marketplace
The human race has civilized itself
It's a miracle

We've got warehouses of butter, we've got oceans of wine
We've got famine when we need it
Got designer crime
We've got Mercedes,we've got Porsche,Ferrari and Rolls Royce
We've got choice
She said meet me in the Garden of Gethsemene my dear
The Lord said Peter I can see your house from here
An honest family man finally reaped what he had sown
A farmer in Ohio has just repaid a loan
It's a miracle

By the grace of God Almighty, and the pressures of the marketplace
The human race has civilized itself
It's a miracle

We cower in our shelters, with our hands over our ears
Lloyd-Webber's awful stuff, runs for years and years and years
An earthquake hits the theatre
But the operetta lingers
Then the piano lid comes down
And breaks his fucking fingers
It's a *fuckin'* miracle...


- Quote by Roger Waters

Science is made through observation, identification, experimental investigation with EVIDENCE, isn't it?

Theoretical science can be the step before one has evidence through experiment.

Some things are purely speculative and may never be able to be proved though experiment.

Truthseeker...
You take ONE book, written by ONE man, which is obviously full of unproven THEORY (not scientific fact) and then use that as your argument?

blimey :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magic~Carpet~Ride
[B]Truthseeker...
You take ONE book, written by ONE man, which is obviously full of unproven THEORY (not scientific fact) and then use that as your argument?

Why does it have to have 'scientific fact,' for it to be used as an argument?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Why does it have to have 'scientific fact,' for it to be used as an argument?

That's simple. An argument or debate can only be maintained with facts and reasoning. Arguments or debates based on anything else are meaningless and will quickly dissolve and delude.

Originally posted by (Q)
That's simple. An argument or debate can only be maintained with facts and reasoning. Arguments or debates based on anything else are meaningless and will quickly dissolve and delude. [/B]

Facts and reasoning, i agree, but what is 'scientific fact,' would that not be the same as 'fact.'
If not, then it must be hypothetical and theoretical, at least until proven fact. Therefore it must be seen either the same as or less than personal experience, which if true are both facts and reasoning.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Facts and reasoning, i agree, but what is 'scientific fact,' would that not be the same as 'fact.'

Without sitting and thinking about every single implication, IMO all or most facts are based on science one way or another.
Theories are based on observations and facts, not personal experiences.

Debates/arguments/whatever are not necesarily proven, won, or demonstrated in a way which has anything to do with science. I would think most arguments/debates and such throughout history have been decided by violence, logic, or emotion. I do not see science as the same as reasoning and logic. For example, I can prove certain things using binary logic which have nothing to do with science. I could demonstrate that I can indeed read and type English by posting on an internet message board; while the medium for this prrof may have been developed by science, the proof itself is not based on science but on my ability to do exactly this.

Originally posted by (Q)
Without sitting and thinking about every single implication, IMO all or most facts are based on science one way or another.

If to come to a 'fact' you somehow have to use science in some way or other, then 'fact' must be the point of science, that is if you regard 'fact' as truth. If that be the case then science can be seen as one way to find facts, but not the only way.


Theories are based on observations and facts, not personal experiences. [/B]

I would have thought observation could also come from personal experience. Scientists have come with theories which were based on personal observations, for example Newton, when the apple fell on his head.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Scientists have come with theories which were based on personal observations, for example Newton, when the apple fell on his head.

Newton had already been working on his theory of gravity based on his observations of the moon. The falling apple confirmed in his mind that the force acting upon the apple must be the same force acting upon the moon.

The falling apple did not trigger the theory.

that is if you regard 'fact' as truth

No, I don't. Fact and truth are two different things.

What science does:
1) form predictions based on observation
2) allow control, based on those predictions

Note that description isn't something science does, because the only type of “description” science gives is predictive description. (If there is any other sort isn't a matter science cares to address.)

Sure, predictions can be in error... but what science does is build up evidence to a point where something has worked so often that you have every reason to expect it to continue to work.

The mysticism is all in the interpretations some people make out of the science, not in the science itself.

Originally posted by (Q)
Newton had already been working on his theory of gravity based on his observations of the moon. The falling apple confirmed in his mind that the force acting upon the apple must be the same force acting upon the moon.

The falling apple did not trigger the theory. [/B]

Hmmm......it would appear not, from your statement.
It would seem that the falling apple (personal experience) triggered the conclusion, which for my money is far more rewarding.

"Then, from these forces, by other propositions, which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon forces."

Isaac Newton (1686)

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Hoth
The mysticism is all in the interpretations some people make out of the science, not in the science itself. [/B]

I believe mysticism is just manipulation of nature.

We all have mystic power of some sort or other.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Q! Go Q!


"Then, from these forces, by other propositions, which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon forces."

That does not show that Newton was even inspired by the falling apple. And the records show that he had been working on a theory of gravitation long before alleged apple fell.

Even if he was, it does not show any link whatsoever between mysticism and science. That link perished in the flames at the Campo della Fiora.

Although Bruno's writings live on. There is no longer a reason to link mysticism and science. Science can be a real source of humility and 'spirituality'*, but only through our interpretations of theories, not through science itself. The emotional implications of scientific discovery remain emotional, not scientific.

*In Bruno's sense of the word, not the modern woo woo crystel-swinger's sense.


Love

Yeah, our Q is rather irresistable.

Jan

We all have mystic power of some sort or other.

We are made up of "ingredients" found everywhere else in nature. In other words, on a molecular level, we are not much different than our surroundings, crudely speaking.

Therefore, what you're inferring is that everything in nature should have "mystical powers". Water, air, rocks, trees, etc..

If I am oversimplifying your statement, please explain.

What proof do you have of this jan?

What science does:
1) form predictions based on observation
2) allow control, based on those predictions

Note that description isn't something science does, because the only type of “description” science gives is predictive description. (If there is any other sort isn't a matter science cares to address.)

Sure, predictions can be in error... but what science does is build up evidence to a point where something has worked so often that you have every reason to expect it to continue to work.

The mysticism is all in the interpretations some people make out of the science, not in the science itself

Uhhhh... hang on. Back up the truck, Hoth... “Science” does plenty of objective description. A geologist for example finds a rock specimen he’s never encountered before; never seen it any textbook. First he notes the appearance, the shape and heft of the rock. This rock is “flat and smooth” or “heavy with marbled hues, but chips or crumbles easily.” He notes the location of where the rock was found. How it was found. Who found it. What else was found along with or near it...etc... Don’t know the actual ‘lingo’ geologists use but I think you can get the gist.

Observation is observation. A scientist is nothing but a human who perceives with his/her senses, and translates the info into a verbal or written description without undue bias. (humans have certain notions about what "flat" means, for example.)

Though ideas may have begun formation from the first moment of observation, it’s after this point that rational predictions begin--when a good scientist practices good science. For some people predictions are more like wishes; they reflect what a given scientist hopes he‘s found. And some are simply predictions: “Said rock appears to have similarities to anthracite, or fluorspar, or flint... Let’s check it out and see where idea # 1, 5, or 23 takes us. If it doesn’t take us far, fine. We’ll set those ideas aside for now because we’re interested in the truth if such can be discovered. We have no real pre-conceived notions about what it’s supposed to be. Only some ideas about what it might be. It could also be something no one‘s found before.”

Could be.
Might be.

Think we’d agree that, yes, predictions--any kind--are often wrong, but so is the assertion that “Science” (as though it were some sentient being) builds up evidence.

Some scientist may try to build a case for their predictions. Some may do so with “evidence” that doesn’t support the claim they want to prove, or doesn‘t support it well. Evidence is evidence. But, “Evidence of what?” is the question a good scientist tries to answer.

The best scientists report what they’ve actually observed while “Science” gives them a reasonable, verifiable, means to do so. An enjoyable moment in the lab is when you have something in your hands, in a test tube, or under a microscope--and you haven’t the faintest idea of what it is--nor of what to predict it ever could be. You have to start somewhere, so you’ve started with the basic description of the “object” or “substance,” of its various properties that are known, and with other observations about its behavior under varying conditions; and note how the original description(s) doesn‘t apply once something “changes” it, and you set out to discover whatever you can discover.

And yes, a scientist--or a group of scientists--will “allow control” based on some or all of their predictions. Fortunately, enough scientists have allowed the appropriate controls and made enough reasonable predictions when designing treatments or experiments to also enable today’s man to live better than did his ancestors of less than a hundred years ago. A sign of success, albeit in a general sense. So-called “intuition” can play a role in achieving such successes, but a moment of intuition is not necessarily a “mystical” experience. We think we know what intuition is and what it’s worth. We have no cause to make it out to be more than what it is.

Better, “Science” doesn’t predict--with 100% certainty--the ultimate fate of mankind. As an “institution” it promises nothing but to attempt to help us understand more of what we’d like to know about our world and beyond. The people who choose to practice Science may do it well or poorly, but that is a matter of individual choice.

And maybe that’s what you meant to say, but it didn’t quite come across that way.

~~~

thx,

Counterbalance

Originally posted by Counterbalance
Uhhhh... hang on. Back up the truck, Hoth... “Science” does plenty of objective description. A geologist for example finds a rock specimen he’s never encountered before; never seen it any textbook.

That's just subjective description of sense experience when you note what a rock looks like. There's nothing objective about it. The more scientific part is when you do experiments on the sample and determine how it reacts to things, or even just predicting how it would react to things based on your subjective description. For example, it's not really scientific to say "this rock looks hard" and it is scientific to say "when I thow this rock at something or hit it with a hammer, it repeatedly shows all the charactaristics we define as being hard, in each experiment."

Objective description is not something science is capable of. As Sir Arthur Eddington noted:


Whenever we state the properties of a body in terms of physical quantities we are imparting knowledge as to the response of various metrical indicators to its presence, and nothing more. ... The progress of the relativity theory has been largely due to the development of a powerful mathematical calculus for dealing compendiously with an infinite scheme of pointer readings, and the technical term tensor used so largely in treatises on Einstein's theory may be translated schedule of pointer readings. ...

Let me give an illustration which takes us to the root of the great problem of the relations of matter and spirit. Take the living human brain endowed with mind and thought. ... The physicist brings his tools and commences systematic exploration. All that he discovers is a collection of atoms and electrons and fields of force arranged in space and time, apparently similar to those found in inorganic objects. ... He might set down thought as an illusion ... . Or, if he sees the folly of calling the most undoubted element of our experience an illusion, he will have to face the tremendous question: How can this collection of ordinary atoms be a thinking machine? .. The Victorian physicist felt that he knew just what he was talking about when he used such terms as matter and atoms. ... But now we realize that science has nothing to say as to the intrinsic nature of the atom. The physical atom is, like everything else in physics, a schedule of pointer readings.

In science we study the linkage of pointer readings with pointer readings. The terms link together in endless cycle with the same inscrutable nature running through the whole.

A visual description may help... here's Eddington's Tailed Pentagon: http://www.ec3.com/Upperized/images/EDDINGT2.GIF

I'd say scientific descriptions mean that the observation of the thing being described can be predicted by the observation of the items and relations in the scientific "description". In other words, science describes the relations of sense experiences. Take, for example, this scientific description: "Water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bonded together." I would translate this to mean "Where you can observe two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bonded, it can be predicted that you will also be able to observe water." There's an important difference between the statements: the first purports to give a description of substance, while the second describes a relationship between observational sense experiences.

Science is predictive, not descriptive.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magic~Carpet~Ride
[B]Truthseeker...
You take ONE book, written by ONE man, which is obviously full of unproven THEORY (not scientific fact) and then use that as your argument?

Why does it have to have 'scientific fact,' for it to be used as an argument?

Love

Jan Ardena.

I was merely pointing out that as the basis of HIS argument Truthseeker was holding up a book illustrating a THEORY as an example of accepted scientific fact, which clearly, it is not.

Originally posted by Magic~Carpet~Ride
I was merely pointing out that as the basis of HIS argument Truthseeker was holding up a book illustrating a THEORY as an example of accepted scientific fact, which clearly, it is not.

You do not need to be a scientist or have so-called scientific fact to understand that the Earth is a living organism.


Originally posted by Tyler
What proof do you have of this jan?

What kind of proof do you want?


Originally posted by (Q)
We are made up of "ingredients" found everywhere else in nature. In other words, on a molecular level, we are not much different than our surroundings, crudely speaking.

Therefore, what you're inferring is that everything in nature should have "mystical powers". Water, air, rocks, trees, etc..

If I am oversimplifying your statement, please explain. [/B]

Water and air are elements that make up rocks, trees, humans etc…

I said mysticism is a ‘manipulation’ of nature.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Note that description isn't something science does, because the only type of “description” science gives is predictive description. (If there is any other sort isn't a matter science cares to address.)

and

That's just subjective description of sense experience when you note what a rock looks like.

Hoth, there can be no good science 'performed' without the human sense experience, subjective or objective, and I think most of us are capable of both objective observation and description. Describing what something is before making any predictions about one's discovery is part of the observation process. --The observation and discovery processes include the sense experience, which includes description, and is therefore a key component to conducting real "Science." Can't have one without the other. To say that "description isn't something science does" isn't accurate, imo.

We discover a rock. We look it over. We describe what we find--as it actually is. We have to do this before we can do anything else or we ain't gonna do good science. Can't discover all the properties of a rock if we've failed to distinguish it from a tree.

Nothing more, nothing less.

~~~

Counterbalance

Jan

Water and air are elements that make up rocks, trees, humans etc

No. They are all made up of molecules. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Air is made up of a number of molecules. These molecules may be found in all things, rocks, trees, humans, etc.. Allow me to help you:

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/scholar/

And besides, I was referring to your statement:

We all have mystic power of some sort or other.

Mysticism is defined as vague, groundless speculation. If this is what you're referring, then I might agree with you, however, rational people never base their lives or decisions on vague, groundless speculation. That would be detrimental to their existence and quite foolish.

I said mysticism is a manipulation of nature.

Again, mysticism is defined as vague, groundless speculation. How is that a manipulation of nature? Please explain how these terms are possibly connected.

You do not need to be a scientist or have so-called scientific fact to understand that the Earth is a living organism.

I agree completly! All you need is a pint of Vodka and a few psycibin!


What kind of proof do you want?

He's probably referring to the normal type of proof - evidence that fits your theory. :rolleyes:


Water and air are elements that make up rocks, trees, humans etc…

Thank you Q - Jan, they are compounds, not elements. I'd advise you to re-take high school chemistry.


I said mysticism is a ‘manipulation’ of nature.

I'm mystically manipulating nature as I type! All bow down before the Allmighty Xev, Geek Goddess Extrordinare, Lovecraftian Chick and Evangelical Skeptic!

Originally posted by (Q)
No. They are all made up of molecules. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Air is made up of a number of molecules.

Maybe you are right, but if ever you are stranded in a desert and out of water, try making water from hydrogen and oxygen.

Water is the element, there are 5 great elements according to vedic literature, earth, water, fire, air and ether, everything in and around the universe is made up of these elements, and that is my understanding.

Mysticism is defined as vague, groundless speculation.

It is easy to see how you come to this conclusion. You don’t believe in God, so from that veiwpoint we can never come to a mutual conclusion. I will give you a more consise understanding of mysticism from a dictionary.

Mysticism: The spiritual quest for the most direct experience of God, or in non-religious terms, a hidden wisdom.

The need for such a search is partly explained in Tagore’s belief that man has a feeling that he is truly represented in something which exceeds himself.

Characteristically, mysticism concentrates on prayer, meditation, contemplation and fasting, so as to produce the attitude necessary for what is believed to be a direct encounter with God.

That is really a very simplistic understanding of mysticism, I see no point in really going in to it, as your philosophy is completely opposite.

That would be detrimental to their existence and quite foolish.

What’s foolish is to have no understanding of a subject and then talk as though you know everything there is to know about that subject.

Again, mysticism is defined as vague, groundless speculation. How is that a manipulation of nature? Please explain how these terms are possibly connected. [/B]

From 'your' perspective, you are correct.
So to try and explain how we have mystical power would be a complete waste of both our time, so please try and see my statement as my opinion.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by (Q)
No. They are all made up of molecules. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Air is made up of a number of molecules.

Maybe you are right, but if ever you are stranded in a desert and out of water, try making water from hydrogen and oxygen.

Water is the element, there are 5 great elements according to vedic literature, earth, water, fire, air and ether, everything in and around the universe is made up of these elements, and that is my understanding.

Mysticism is defined as vague, groundless speculation.

It is easy to see how you come to this conclusion. You don’t believe in God, so from that veiwpoint we can never come to a mutual conclusion. I will give you a more consise understanding of mysticism from a dictionary.

Mysticism: The spiritual quest for the most direct experience of God, or in non-religious terms, a hidden wisdom.

Characteristically, mysticism concentrates on prayer, meditation, contemplation and fasting, so as to produce the attitude necessary for what is believed to be a direct encounter with God.

That is really a very simplistic understanding of mysticism, I see no point in really going in to it, as your philosophy is completely opposite.

That would be detrimental to their existence and quite foolish.

What’s detrimental and foolish is to have no understanding of a subject and then talk as though you know everything there is to know about that subject.

Again, mysticism is defined as vague, groundless speculation. How is that a manipulation of nature? Please explain how these terms are possibly connected. [/B]

From your perspective, you are correct. So to try and explain how we have mystical power would be a complete waste of both our time, so please try and see my statement as my opinion.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
That does not show that Newton was even inspired by the falling apple.

That is your opinion, I, on the other hand is of a different opinion like millions of other people, and believe that that was the inspiration.

And the records show that he had been working on a theory of gravitation long before alleged apple fell.

Therefore they must show that all his theoretical calculations didn’t mean much until he was inspired by a personal experience, which brought everything together, a realisation. :)

"Then, from these forces, by other propositions, which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon forces."

Why don’t you try and understand what this quote actually means. Instead of foolishly trying to speculate.

Even if he was, it does not show any link whatsoever between mysticism and science. That link perished in the flames at the Campo della Fiora.

Said from someone who doesn’t know what mysticism is. :D

Love

Jan Ardena.

Oh dear lord.....
Jan, say it ain't so........

You're a nelson???


"Maybe you are right, but if ever you are stranded in a desert and out of water, try making water from hydrogen and oxygen.

Water is the element, there are 5 great elements according to vedic literature, earth, water, fire, air and ether, everything in and around the universe is made up of these elements, and that is my understanding."

Noooooooooo! A total disregard for all science!!!!!!!
Oh and Jan, try making a human from fire, air, ether, earth and water.

Jan

Maybe you are right, but if ever you are stranded in a desert and out of water, try making water from hydrogen and oxygen.

I could say the same thing to you. Try making water out of a rock or a tree. But that's not the point. You're evading the topic.

btw - I know how to create water in the desert. It's not that hard. One could easily survive.

Water is the element, there are 5 great elements according to vedic literature, earth, water, fire, air and ether, everything in and around the universe is made up of these elements, and that is my understanding.

You're understanding is flawed and Vedic literature is complete nonsense. As per below:

Puranas are compiled from related historical facts which explain the teachings of the four Vedas. In the Chandogya Upanisad, the Puranas and the Mahabharata, generally known as histories, are mentioned as the fifth Veda.

All the stories mentioned in the Puranas are actual histories, not only of this planet but also on millions of other planets within the universe.

The history of millions of other planets within the universe? C'mon Jan, that is totally ridiculous. No one knows anything about any other planets except the ones within our own solar system, and there is much to learn about those.

It is easy to see how you come to this conclusion. You don’t believe in God, so from that veiwpoint we can never come to a mutual conclusion.

If one believes in gods, they are unable to come to any conclusions. Religion has already made those conclusions for them. That is why theists have no reason to think for themselves.

I will give you a more consise understanding of mysticism from a dictionary.

My definition came directly from a dictionary. I suspected you would fall for that one.

That is really a very simplistic understanding of mysticism, I see no point in really going in to it, as your philosophy is completely opposite.

It is not *my* philosophy and it is a very precise understanding of mysticism. (see above re: dictionary)

What’s detrimental and foolish is to have no understanding of a subject and then talk as though you know everything there is to know about that subject.

The subject of vague, groundless speculation is a subject anyone can profess to know. Whether one applies this method in their lives or not is what separates the rational from the irrational. To be rational, one must know this subject very well. To be irrational, one must simply apply the method.

From your perspective, you are correct. So to try and explain how we have mystical power would be a complete waste of both our time, so please try and see my statement as my opinion.

I will do so, however, I suspect you are unable to explain it. Why? Simple. One cannot explain the irrational. There is no level playing field so to speak. There are no common terms or common grounds in which to discuss the irrational.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by (Q)
I could say the same thing to you. Try making water out of a rock or a tree. But that's not the point. You're evading the topic.

No I’m not, my point is relevant, you can have all the hydrgen and oxygen in the world, but you couldn’t create water, water is already made, you may be able to extract water, but you cannot make water.

You're understanding is flawed and Vedic literature is complete nonsense. As per below:

How original and scientific.

The history of millions of other planets within the universe? C'mon Jan, that is totally ridiculous. No one knows anything about any other planets except the ones within our own solar system, and there is much to learn about those.

If we are being objective and you have no proof of evidence that suggests the vedas are falsely written, then you have to accept that God knows His creation, putting aside belief.
To give any credibility to your argument, you must prove that God does 1) not exist and 2) that vedic literature is not from God, otherwise your argument is useless.

If one believes in gods, they are unable to come to any conclusions. Religion has already made those conclusions for them. That is why theists have no reason to think for themselves.

Again you make wild assertions with no real understanding.

My definition came directly from a dictionary. I suspected you would fall for that one.

Then the question must be, which definition is right, personally I would enquire from a mystic because he would actually know.

It is not *my* philosophy and it is a very precise understanding of mysticism. (see above re: dictionary)

I meant the definition I gave was basic and simplistic.

The subject of vague, groundless speculation is a subject anyone can profess to know.

But that is not mysticism.

To be rational, one must know this subject very well.
To be irrational, one must simply apply the method.

That makes no sense.

I will do so, however, I suspect you are unable to explain it. Why? Simple. One cannot explain the irrational.

I gave you a basic description above, its up to you how you think.

There is no level playing field so to speak. There are no common terms or common grounds in which to discuss the irrational.

You see it as irrational, I see it as rational, based on your definition, you have no understanding of it, based on mine, i do, that is all there is to it, this is why there is no point in going deeper into the subject.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan

You see it as irrational, I see it as rational, based on your definition, you have no understanding of it, based on mine, i do, that is all there is to it, this is why there is no point in going deeper into the subject.

Then we can agree to disagree. Don't you just love when things work out the way they do. :)

I read somewhere here you were similar to Truthseeker. In my opinion, you are not. Please accept that as high praise.

Tyler:

Oh dear lord.....
Jan, say it ain't so........

You're a nelson???

She seems to suffer from Nelsonitis, yes. However, Jan suffers from the fact that she is unable to communicate with her betters without attempting to insult them.

Jan:

That is your opinion, I, on the other hand is of a different opinion like millions of other people, and believe that that was the inspiration.

I did not say that he was not inspired by the apple - I claimed that your evidence was inconclusive.

And, millions of people believe that Newton was inspired by the apple? Millions of people believe that antibiotics work on virii. Try again.

For the record, I am open to the possibility that Newton was inspired by the fall of an apple.


Therefore they must show that all his theoretical calculations didn’t mean much until he was inspired by a personal experience, which brought everything together, a realisation.

You do seem to have finally grasped the concept. Congratulations.


Why don’t you try and understand what this quote actually means. Instead of foolishly trying to speculate.

I did not speculate at all. Are you claiming to know the mind of Newton?


Said from someone who doesn’t know what mysticism is.

Ad hominem and false. Modern mysticism is the attempt to commune with a 'higher power or powers', to reach somthing beyond the material universe.

Thus doomed to failure. Bruno's mysticism was an attempt to understand the universe, which he regarded as a higher power or powers. Basically, to Bruno, God was an integrel part of the universe - it's very difficult to explain - but Bruno sought his God through science.

But Bruno was persecuted and burned alive, and the threads of his philosophy were never really picked up again.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
I did not speculate at all. Are you claiming to know the mind of Newton?

Of course not, I’m only going off what he said.

Love

Jan Ardena.

oh... ffs. (ooops, did I say that out loud?)

Jan

No I’m not, my point is relevant, you can have all the hydrogen and oxygen in the world, but you couldn’t create water, water is already made, you may be able to extract water, but you cannot make water.

Sorry Jan, you're wrong. A little education of your part might help to substantiate some credibility. In other words, look before you leap. The abyss of ignorance is very wide and very deep.

You can separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules with "electrolysis."

Water is also produced as a bi-product in generating electricity in fuel cells.

To produce electricity, hydrogen is fed into one end of the fuel cell. There it meets a platinum anode that strips an electron from each hydrogen atom, producing an electric current and a stream of hydrogen ions. The electric current flows to the electric motor, supplying it with power. At the other end of the fuel cell, a platinum cathode combines the stream of hydrogen ions coming from the platinum anode, the electric current returning from the electric motor, and oxygen. These three react to produce water.

http://www.autoalliance.org/fuel_cells.htm

Isn't science marvelous? ;)

Jan

By the way, I'm surprised you didn't question me on my claim to make water in the desert. You were the one that initially brought up the topic. :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by (Q)
Sorry Jan, you're wrong. A little education of your part might help to substantiate some credibility. In other words, look before you leap. The abyss of ignorance is very wide and very deep.

OK, let the education begin.

You can separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules with "electrolysis."

What is electrolysis?

Water is also produced as a bi-product in generating electricity in fuel cells.

To produce electricity, hydrogen is fed into one end of the fuel cell. There it meets a platinum anode that strips an electron from each hydrogen atom, producing an electric current and a stream of hydrogen ions. The electric current flows to the electric motor, supplying it with power. At the other end of the fuel cell, a platinum cathode combines the stream of hydrogen ions coming from the platinum anode, the electric current returning from the electric motor, and oxygen. These three react to produce water.

This process ‘produces’ water, it doesn’t ‘create water,’ as I said, water is already there., so that point proves nothing.


By the way, I'm surprised you didn't question me on my claim to make water in the desert.

Good point!!
How can you ‘create’ water in the desert.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan

What is electrolysis?

If an electrical current is passed through water between electrodes (the positive and minus poles of a battery), the water is split into its two parts: oxygen and hydrogen.

This process ‘produces’ water, it doesn’t ‘create water,’ as I said, water is already there., so that point proves nothing.

Wrong again. Did you not read the post or just not understand it? Water is NOT already there. It is produced or created, which means the same thing. Water is created by this method using hydrogen and oxygen. Deny it if you will, but it makes your credibility look very thin indeed.

Therefore it is possible to create water using hydrogen and oxygen and it is possible to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen. Is that clear?

Good point!!
How can you ‘create’ water in the desert.

If I did not have the resources of a fuel cell that created or produced water, then the next best thing is a simple survival technique.

All that's required is a sheet of plastic, a small rock or something else with a little weight, and a container. One simply digs a wide hole in the sand, places the container in the bottom/middle of the hole, places the sheet of plastic over the hole and covers up the edges of the plastic with sand so that nothing escapes from inside the hole. Place the small rock or object in the middle of the sheet of plastic over the container. In a few hours, condensation begins to appear on the inside of the sheet of plastic from the heat of the sun. The condensation trickles towards the middle of the plastic (due to the weight of the small rock) and drips into the container. Water is created, and most importantly, one is able to survive in the desert. ;)

So you see, with a little knowledge of science, I could survive in the desert. With a little prayer, you would not. :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by (Q)
Wrong again. Did you not read the post or just not understand it? Water is NOT already there. It is produced or created, which means the same thing.

produce bring forward for consideration – inspection or use – manufacture (goods) from raw materials – bear or yeild (offspring, fruit or harvest).

create bring into existence; cause – make or cause

Also when anything is produced or created, there has to be a producer or a creator.

You said;

. In other words, look before you leap. The abyss of ignorance is very wide and very deep.

While I do agree with your advise, I get the feeling you think you are above it. :)

Therefore it is possible to create water using hydrogen and oxygen and it is possible to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen. Is that clear?

Yes, what your saying is very clear, I just don’t believe it is possible.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan

Yes, what your saying is very clear, I just don’t believe it is possible.

Interesting. You don't believe in something that is a fact, that works in fuel cells, that works in electrolytic plating, that is used in the manufacturing products every day, and yet you believe in a mythical, all powerful being.

I retract my earlier compliment regarding your dissimilarity to Truthseeker.

You have an amazing talent for alienation. There is obviously no grounds for further discussion.

btw - don't go near the desert.

"Therefore it is possible to create water using hydrogen and oxygen and it is possible to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen. Is that clear?

Yes, what your saying is very clear, I just don’t believe it is possible."


Jan is actually beyond nelson now. See, nelson at least acknowledged some very basic science as fact. Jan has decided she's above all the science we know.


http://www.energy.ca.gov/education/projects/projects-html/split_h2o.html


It's a grade 7 science experiment.

"create bring into existence; cause – make or cause

Also when anything is produced or created, there has to be a producer or a creator."

There is a creator, whoever puts the hyrdrogen and oxygen together. Nature does this for us most of the time.

There is no way we know of to create elements, though. The difference between you and I (and Q, Xev, and all atheists)....? You see a question that can't be answered scientifically and say it must be God. We see that same question and say; I don't know yet, but maybe we can find out. Excellent example on how arrogant theists are, believing they know all the answers.

Originally posted by Tyler
Jan is actually beyond nelson now. See, nelson at least acknowledged some very basic science as fact. Jan has decided she's above all the science we know.
It's a grade 7 science experiment. [/B][/I]

Quote from site,

“Water is a simple chemical made from two gases -- hydrogen and oxygen. Every molecule of water has two atoms of hydrogen for every atom of oxygen. H2O is the chemical formula for a molecule of water.”

So, because I think water is an element, I think I am above science. :p

If water is just a simple chemical, then why do we have drought problems, why don’t we make water??

There is no way we know of to create elements, though.

Right! Including water. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

"So, because I think water is an element, I think I am above science.

If water is just a simple chemical, then why do we have drought problems, why don’t we make water??"

That's an incredibly expensive idea you're talking about. Perhaps you are exactly like Nelson in that you don't read someone's full post...The Q gave you a site that shows how water is produced (http://www.autoalliance.org/fuel_cells.htm ). Perhaps you need a little more brushing up on grade 7 science...

http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/atom.html


If water, earth, air... are the elements. Than how come we can't just create humans? Or how come we can't just create gold? By the logic of your question, it should be amazingly simple to just make perfect gold, right?

First, thanks Jan. I haven't had this much fun with your posts since you accused me of wishing to kill God. :)

(Or at least put a bloody Bible head on His pillow :D)


So, because I think water is an element, I think I am above science.

Umm, Jan, water is a compound, not an element.

I, er, learned this in fourth grade......


If water is just a simple chemical, then why do we have drought problems, why don’t we make water??

We do, and we 'seed clouds'. However, the process is most inefficient and expensive.

I have made water as the byproduct of a chemical reaction.


There is no way we know of to create elements, though.

Actually, there kinda is. We can transmute elements...


Right! Including water.

Which isn't a element at all.


Love

I don't know whether you're after the Q or Tyler but you keep your crystel-swinging, Bhagavad Gita - thumping hands off both! :p

Sushi

Xev

P.S: Feel free to Adam, but don't you dare break his heart! :p

It's okay Jan, you can swing your crystals at me any time. You are female, right?

Yes, I'm just being silly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If water is just a simple chemical, then why do we have drought
problems, why don’t we make water??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We do, and we 'seed clouds'. However, the process is most inefficient and expensive."

Bravo! Your reply is as ridiculous as her question.

Keep it up and you two can become the equivalent of a Banshee/Bebelina science team.

Take care, and thanks for the chuckle :rolleyes:

Chagur:

As Premeir Kissoff would say"

"My source was the New York Times"

I do not claim to be an expert on atmospheric science. Perchance you do?

Tell me Chag, have you ever made one serious contribution to any of our scientific discussions? I mention H2O2 on mars, you make flippant remarks about blondes. I present a point, you respond with a rather limp (and I am sure you are familiar with 'limp') ad hominem attack.

So Chag, do you have somthing to add to the discussion? No? Then go back to fantasizing about Brittany Spears, for god knows that's the closest thing you'll get to actual sex for a long, long time. :)

P.S: You might even wish to read a book or two at some point - might have somthing intelligent to say.

http://rams.atmos.colostate.edu/gkss_node2.html#SECTION00020000000000000000

http://rams.atmos.colostate.edu/gkss_node3.html#SECTION00030000000000000000

Thought I might help out a tic. Though I understand you're far from needing my help!

Thanks Tyler! They're interesting.

See, our Chaggie just has 'woman issues'. He's getting old and to 'that age', if you know what I mean. ;)

Consequently, he's rather frustrated in a certain way...and...

*Whispers conspiritorially*

I think women, especially me, make him feel threatened.

Both URLs have to do with cloud seeding ... an attempt to induce
precipitation, not 'create water'.

I suggest that before you try to emulate Sir Galahad, you find a
fair maiden worthy of the effort :D

Take care :rolleyes:

Ouch!

*Adam gets some popcorn and sits back to enjoy the show...*

"I doubt that any female astronauts will be touching up their roots
during a Mars mission."

"I mention H2O2 on mars, you make flippant remarks about blondes."

I have a suggestiion for you: Learn to read ... and comprehend.

Take care :rolleyes:

Chagur, you are SOOOO asking for a slappin'. Hey, sounds like fun. I might join in too... :p

Truthseeker,

Going back to the very first post of this thread...

I'd like to see the exact quotes in which the author asks us to believe the set of things you say he asks us to believe. Can you please provide some quotes from the book.

I <i>suspect</i> you are misinterpreting it, but I can't be sure since I haven't read it myself.

Did I say they were about creating water? Please quote me.

Learn to think before you write.

My abject apology.

I made the mistake of thinking you were attempting to contribute
something to the discussion.

I now understand that you were .... Hm, what is that expression?

Oh yes ... 'Sucking up.'

Take care :rolleyes:

You know what I like about you chagur? You're a moron.

See, morons are easy to correct.


You quoted Xev's comment on seeding clouds AND creating water. Then you said she was ridiculous.

So I backed up one of the statements.

James R,

The author taks about it explicitly... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Truthseeker,

I asked for quotes, not your repeated statements about what the author says.

I don't have the book here...

Why does that not surprise me?

"We have seen that funding of the science of weather modification
underwent a period of rapid rise, followed by an abrupt crash. One
of the leading causes of that crash, we believe, is that the program
was oversold. The claims that only a few more years of research and
development will lead to a scientifically-proven technology that will
contribute substantially to water management and severe weather
abatement, were either great exaggerations, or just false. This is largely
because we greatly underestimated the complexity of the scientific
and technological problems we were (and still are) faced with."

If you care to read more regarding the topic, check out:

http://rams.atmos.colostate.edu/gkss.html

Please don't go out of your way to prove that your ignorance is at least
equal to Zev's.

Take care :rolleyes:

First of all, the name is Xev.
Second of all, she claimed we tried seeding clouds but it was ineffective and inefficient.
If you read that site, you would note that we DID try seeding clouds.
Of course, you're not one to take your own advise, are you?

Oh horrors! A typo!

Tell you what: I'll try to avoid any future typos if you promise to learn
how to read.

"We do, and we 'seed clouds'. However, the process is most inefficient and expensive."

was Xev's statement. Better have the prescription of your 'rose colored
glasses' checked. And while you're at it, you might want to check if 'her'
balls are limited to 'her' attitude.

Take care :rolleyes:

Edit: Damn, I did it again ... But I corrected it, Tyler.

by-otch

James R,

I will give another example that is not in that book...

Brane Theory

Two Universes colliding with each other... Hummm.... seems mysticism to me... :)

.
.
.
Do you have evidence?????
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Love,
Nelson

So what's your point? You questioned her statements on seeding clouds and creating water. I backed up one of them. Are you denying that we have attempted seeding clouds? I don't get what you're saying?

As a refresher:

Jan's idiotic question:
"If water is just a simple chemical, then why do we have
drought problems, why don’t we make water??"

Xev's ridiculous reply:
"We do, and we 'seed clouds'. However, the process is
most inefficient and expensive."

Is Xev telling Jan that we make water to solve drought problems?

Or, is she telling Jan that we seed clouds to solve the problem?

(Neither would be correct.)

If she is telling Jan that we seed clouds to 'make water' she is ignorant
of what the cloud seeding experiments were all about.

And, which is 'most inefficient and expensive' ... solving the drought
problem or seeding the clouds?

If she is referring to the latter, she is ignorant of the fact that cloud
seeding is relatively inexpensive (yes, it is most inefficient - I'll grant
her that) but if she's referring to the former, she's right on both counts.

Problem is, this ancient moron has no idea which she is referring too,
let alone what she is trying to say.

Would you care to explain, oh brilliant youth?

Take care :rolleyes:

"We do, and we 'seed clouds'. However, the process is most inefficient and expensive.

I have made water as the byproduct of a chemical reaction."




"Is Xev telling Jan that we make water to solve drought problems?"

If she is, then yes she is wrong. But I did not gather that. My interputation of her post meerly looked at the 'cloud seeding'.




"Or, is she telling Jan that we seed clouds to solve the problem?"

Yup, she says we try. Well, we tried at least. Like she says, it is inefficient. Obviously, the reason we don't do it.




"Problem is, this ancient moron has no idea which she is referring too,
let alone what she is trying to say.

Would you care to explain, oh brilliant youth?"

Jan says we can't make water. Xev points out that we can create water, as she has done it by byproduct of an experiemtn. I believe it was Adam who also pointed this out. Then she points out that we have tried the drought-solving thingy, but it is inefficient (though the expensive part is wrong, yes).

I didn't find it too difficult to understand.

Truthseeker,

Ok. If you'd like to discuss whether brane theory is mystical, then perhaps you can provide a reference as to where it discusses colliding universes.

BTW, by "brane theory" do you mean M-theory?

I suggest that you read Jan's question once again.

As far as I can see with these weak old eyes, she doesn't state that
water can't be made ... But rather, asks "why don’t we make water??"

A bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?

Take care :rolleyes:

Thanks Tyler. My apologies for being away...

Chagur:

"I doubt that any female astronauts will be touching up their roots
during a Mars mission."

"I mention H2O2 on mars, you make flippant remarks about blondes."

I have a suggestiion for you: Learn to read ... and comprehend.

Take care

Let's review:
H202 is used to bleach hair - so as to become blonde.
Hence your comment.
Now, your comment was flip, no?

So, where did I make a mistake?


I now understand that you were .... Hm, what is that expression?

Oh yes ... 'Sucking up.'

Your lack of the skill as it pertains to women explains a lot. How long has it been, Chaggie?


was Xev's statement. Better have the prescription of your 'rose colored
glasses' checked. And while you're at it, you might want to check if 'her'
balls are limited to 'her' attitude.

I am a woman in every sense of the word - then again, I doubt that you have any comprehension of what a 'woman' is.

(Note: A 'woman' is what usually hits Chaggie or runs away when he offers 'her' a drink)


Is Xev telling Jan that we make water to solve drought problems?

That was tried. The process was too inefficiant to work. So saith my encyclopaedia.


Or, is she telling Jan that we seed clouds to solve the problem?

I told Jan that we tried, and that the process "was most inefficiant and expensive" - in other words, it has been tried, but was too expensive to provide a real solution.

I never claimed that cloud seeding was a actual solution to drought - I claimed the exact opposite. Tyler, (who, you may note, is a man - a man would be the opposite of what you are, Chaggie) was nice enough to back me up.

P.S: Tyler, there is of course one way to resolve all disputes as to my gender....;)

Originally posted by Tyler

Jan says we can't make water. Xev points out that we can create water, as she has done it by byproduct of an experiemtn. I believe it was Adam who also pointed this out. Then she points out that we have tried the drought-solving thingy, but it is inefficient (though the expensive part is wrong, yes).


I pointed something out?! Bloody hell, I need to be more careful...

I don't recall ever saying anything about creating water in an experiment. I know in high school I did some things that left water in the tube and such, but I'm not sure I've mentioned such previously. Must have been someone else.

JamesR,

By "brane theory" I mean two universes colliding... Of course, it's related to M-Theory, Superstrings,...

The "Mysticism" here is: our universe, when it was cold and inhabited, collided with a parallel universe which heated our universe creating all those things we see (and don't see...)...
Ok... that's explain many things... but that is NO evidence... and scientists say that there might be impossible to get any evidence as we are... stuck... in our universe, we can't detect other universes if they exist...

Then... isn't that mysticism...?

Remembering...

"Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's sense and one's reason. Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity."

Ayn Rand

...

Love,
Nelson

Truthseeker,

<i>our universe, when it was cold and inhabited, collided with a parallel universe which heated our universe creating all those things we see (and don't see...)... </i>

That theory is news to me. Can you please provide a link to where I can read more about it? (Preferably to a scientific source.)

<i>...and scientists say that there might be impossible to get any evidence as we are... stuck... in our universe, we can't detect other universes if they exist...

Then... isn't that mysticism...?</i>

Only if said scientifists purport to believe in the theory. Who's accepting this particular allegation without evidence?

"I suggest that you read Jan's question once again.

As far as I can see with these weak old eyes, she doesn't state that
water can't be made ... But rather, asks "why don’t we make water??"

A bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?"

Were we not discussing Xev's comments? Now we change to Jan's question?

You see, Chagur, we had already given Jan the answer to her question numerous times. I take it you believe in science? So then you would know that water is not an element? But that hydrogen and oxygen make it up? Read the whole conversation and you'll get the idea that we had little place to go in trying to debate Jan, as she doesn't believe in science or logic.


Oh, and sorry Adam.




Oh......and yes please xev!

Xev
"So, where did I make a mistake?"

The following article, from 'Chemical & Engineering News' should
enlighten you. Don't worry, it's relatively easy reading.

<a href=http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/7811scit4.html> <font color =red> What's That Stuff? </font></a>

"How long has it been, Chaggie?"

Not so long that I feel it necessary to curry favor with an immature
'twerp' (in every sense of the word).

Tyler

If you remember, and you should at your age, my comment (directed
to Xev) was "Your reply is as ridiculous as her question" and that as
far back as April 4th I had addressed Jan as follows: "Seeing your
'name' puzzled me since, considering your numerous posts, I had
not run across your childish prattle before. A quick 'search' revealed
why: I generally don't frequent the Religious forum."

Apparently Xev does not have the sense to avoid debate with those
incapable of it, yet persists in attempting to justify herself to those
who point out her shallowness.

Oh, and regarding Xev's tacky "P.S: Tyler, there is of course one way to
resolve all disputes as to my gender...." and your juvenile "Oh......and
yes please xev!" ****Yuck****

By the by, how are things going between you and your girlfriend?

Take care, all :rolleyes:

"Apparently Xev does not have the sense to avoid debate with those
incapable of it, yet persists in attempting to justify herself to those
who point out her shallowness."

I take it by your age comment that you are well past the schooling years. Still, in school, did your teacher just not bother with the kid who didn't get the idea first time around?

I hope not.




And yeah, it was trashy and immature and dumb. But who cares?

As for my girlfriend, we broke up a little while ago.

Yes, I'm very well past the schooling years. Got my Masters back in the
mid-70's.

As for bothering with 'kids' ... Yeah, I can see it when they're 6 or 7 years
old, but I think both Jan and Xev are well past that. Though, at times, they
both give the impression of being quite juvenile.

Hey, so long as it was fun. Guess you could consider yourself collateral
damage in the ongoing 'tit-for-tat' exchange between Xev and I.

Sorry about the breakup. From some of your posts I got the impression
you had a thing for her.

Take care.

"As for bothering with 'kids' ... Yeah, I can see it when they're 6 or 7 years
old, but I think both Jan and Xev are well past that. Though, at times, they
both give the impression of being quite juvenile."

Yup, agreed. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why I bother trying to explain simple concepts to someone like Jan or Nelson. I have this uncontrollable urge to try and explain things. It's not really a good thing at all.


"Hey, so long as it was fun. Guess you could consider yourself collateral
damage in the ongoing 'tit-for-tat' exchange between Xev and I."

Okay!



"Sorry about the breakup. From some of your posts I got the impression
you had a thing for her."

Xev? Ah, that's not what I thought you meant. A long while ago in a discussion about love I had brought up my girlfriend at the time. My girlfriend and I broke up a little while ago.

Xev lives in Michigan. I live in Toronto. There's a slight distance problem!

I'll pick-up Xev's fare to Toronto ... If you promise not to send her back!

Take care :D :D :D

Well I can't make any promises that she won't leave......but I'm not throwin' her back!\

James R,

I've read it in a scientific magazine...
I'm almost sure it was this one (even the picture is the same...:) ):
http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/bob9.asp

I got more links... VERY scientific... ;)

Space.com :
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-2.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html

Princeton University:
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0103239
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/joint98/khoury/
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0108187

CNN news:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/04/13/big.bang.collision/

Others:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/talks/ngt1000/annecy/index.html
http://www.analogsf.com/0204/AV.html
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/ekpyrotic.htm
http://finitenature.com/links/

It's pretty interesting... it solves many problems... but it's hard or even impossible to get any evidence...


Only if said scientifists purport to believe in the theory. Who's accepting this particular allegation without evidence?
It seems that scientists are accepting it pretty much...

Love,
Nelson

Nelson, there's a large difference between accepting a theory and entertaining one.

That seems acceptance to me...

Truthseeker,

Thanks for the links. Good to see you looking at some science.

Let's look at some of the statements made in your first linked article:
-------------
This <b>model</b> for the evolution of the cosmos...

Although the <b>hypothesis</b> sounds like science fiction...

"I don't think it's by any means yet a real rival to inflation, but I think it is <b>a model well worth pursuing</b>," says Alan H. Guth...

In the new <b>hypothesis</b>, however, "our universe begins in a static, featureless state"

"It's a very radical <b>idea</b> we have," admits Burt A. Ovrut ...

According to Steinhardt and his colleagues, certain types of branes <b>may</b> turn out to have profound consequences for cosmology.

"<b>I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing</b>," Guth adds. "They need to make very strong assumptions about the initial conditions—they're really starting out with a universe that's already infinite and uniform."

At least one <b>empirical test</b> of the ekpyrotic theory may soon be possible

"I worry a lot about the details," says Ovrut. "<b>This is a theory that's really still in its infancy.</b>"
------------

The emphases are mine.

Now, Truthseeker, do you still think that scientists believe in this hypothesis without evidence? They seem very cautious to me. They're proposing empirical tests for the theory. They say it still needs work. They say it's in the early stages of development.

I don't see much mysticism here.

I'll pick-up Xev's fare to Toronto ... If you promise not to send her back!

I usually head across the 'bridge for the Fourth/Canada Day celebrations in july....feel free to send your credit card number via private message.

But, I could never leave my wonderfull, wonderfull country.


Xev
"So, where did I make a mistake?"

The following article, from 'Chemical & Engineering News' should
enlighten you. Don't worry, it's relatively easy reading.

Umm, great, thanks, I'll think of that should I ever wish to go blonde.

Your point being? I made an itty-bitty mistake and ascribed the use of H2O2 to blondes, not to all women who dye their hair?

You have no fucking clue, do you Chaggie? Look, either stick strictly to personal attacks, or find a place where I am wrong.

You bore me, so I leave this.

James R,

The mysticism is because scientists have no evidence for any of the cosmological theories they ever made. Besides that, some of them just make up things just to explain that the universe was not made for the purpose of our existance. Scientists wants the Random Universe because without a random universe there must be a highter conscience to create.

Love,
Nelson

Truthseeker,

<i>The mysticism is because scientists have no evidence for any of the cosmological theories they ever made.</i>

This simply displays your ignorance of cosmological theories, Truthseeker. It is easily shown to be false.

<i>Besides that, some of them just make up things just to explain that the universe was not made for the purpose of our existance.</i>

Do you have evidence that it was? I don't think you do.

<i>Scientists wants the Random Universe because without a random universe there must be a highter conscience to create.</i>

False dichotomy. Also, science would be useless in a random universe. What scientist would want that?

But back to my previous question: Do you seriously believe that any scientist accepts the brane theory, as opposed to considering that it might be a possible explanation? Even after reading all the quotes from the article I posted?

James R,


This simply displays your ignorance of cosmological theories, Truthseeker. It is easily shown to be false.

I was talking specifically about the theories of the beginning... lige Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc...


Do you have evidence that it was? I don't think you do.
We have no evidence for either way, so lets stop those assumptions that there's no God...


False dichotomy. Also, science would be useless in a random universe. What scientist would want that?

A random universe that works by chance and probability is widely spreaded in science. An example... the theory of evoution of Darwin... Always "by chance"... that's the random universe.


Do you seriously believe that any scientist accepts the brane theory, as opposed to considering that it might be a possible explanation? Even after reading all the quotes from the article I posted?

As I've been reading... they assume that it might be a possible explanation. It solves many of the puzzles of the Big Bang theory...

Love,
Nelson

Truthseeker,

<i>I was talking specifically about the theories of the beginning... lige Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc...</i>

Yes, I know. There's good evidence for the big bang. For example, the cosmic background radiation and the observed expansion of the universe.

<i>We have no evidence for either way, so lets stop those assumptions that there's no God...</i>

Evidence either way for what?
Science doesn't concern itself with God. There's no scientific assumption that God doesn't exist. It is an unnecessary assumption in any science - just like the assumption that God does exist. Science is neutral on that question, which is more properly one of philosophy or religion.

<i>A random universe that works by chance and probability is widely spreaded in science. An example... the theory of evoution of Darwin... Always "by chance"... that's the random universe.</i>

You don't know much about evolution either, do you? Evolution is not random. It relies on natural selection, which is not a random process.

<i>... they assume that it might be a possible explanation. It solves many of the puzzles of the Big Bang theory...</i>

They <b>think</b> it <b>might</b> be a <b>possible</b> explanation. In other words, they aren't assuming anything or accepting anything without evidence.

Nelson, before you start criticising scientists and science and the scientific method, don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something about them?

Nelson:


We have no evidence for either way, so lets stop those assumptions that there's no God...

Actually we do have 'evidence' against the existance of God.

What, Xev?

If you must know, my name is Adam, not God. Get it right. Stupid mortals...

James R,


Yes, I know. There's good evidence for the big bang. For example, the cosmic background radiation and the observed expansion of the universe.

Many scientists nowdays doubt about the inflationary theory. There are many puzzles that may prove it wrong...


Science doesn't concern itself with God. There's no scientific assumption that God doesn't exist. It is an unnecessary assumption in any science - just like the assumption that God does exist. Science is neutral on that question, which is more properly one of philosophy or religion.

Doesn't seem neutral for me...


You don't know much about evolution either, do you? Evolution is not random. It relies on natural selection, which is not a random process.

I'm talking about genetic evolution... breeding and randomly exchanging genes... until you get it...


They think it might be a possible explanation. In other words, they aren't assuming anything or accepting anything without evidence.

No. They continue developing more and more theories to try to explain a random universe... and we still don't have any evidence of parallel universes...


Nelson, before you start criticising scientists and science and the scientific method, don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something about them?

I guess this should be adressed to you...

Love,
Nelson

What, Xev?

Naw, I'm only evidence against the existance of a merciful God. ;)

The argument of irrational belief
The argument of suffering

Can be considered evidence if you use the term loosely.

I erred, though, in stating my case too strongly. Sorry.

Thanks JamesR.

Nelson:


Many scientists nowdays doubt about the inflationary theory. There are many puzzles that may prove it wrong...

'Many scientists' is an argument from authority and quite useless. What puzzles that may prove inflationary theory wrong?


Doesn't seem neutral for me...

Why not?


I'm talking about genetic evolution... breeding and randomly exchanging genes... until you get it...

No, you're confusing mutation and natural selection. Mutation is random, but natural selection is not.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

"Given infinite time, nature would by chance alone eventually hit on the order we see around us."

Denis Diderot and David Humew


Modern version:
"Given infinite time. a monkey with a type writter would eventually type the works of Shakespeare."

Unknown

With the magic of technology, here's the monkey with the typewritter!!! :D:D:D (http://www.megalink.net/~ccs/monkey.htm)

Here are some good links about the supidity of a Random Universe... :D:D:D

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/bridge8.5.98.html
http://www.nutters.org/monkeys.html
http://bruce.cs.cf.ac.uk/bruce/Artificial_Intelligence/Monkey_Typing_at_Random.html
http://www.tetrica.com/science/monkeys.html


What's random in science?

From "God: the Evidence" by Patrick Glynn:
"

Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electro-magnetism. If gravity had been only 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion less massive and would burn a million times faster."1

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example). 2

A strong nuclear syrng force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons-yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is-roughly twice the mass of an electron- then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say goodbye to chemistry as we know it- and life.3

The very nature of water-so vital to life- is something of a mistery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrene Henderson). Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom. 4

The synthesis of carbon-the vital core of all organic molecules-on a significant scale involves what scientists view as "astonishing" coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism.5 This ratio makes it possible for varbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12- allowing the necessary bindingto take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long.

"

Notes:
1. Leslie, p. 5.
2. Leslie, p. 34.
3. Leslie, p. 4.
4. Leslie, pp. 39-40
5. Barrow and Tipler, pp 143-144, 524-541. Cf. Denys Wilkinson, Our Universes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp. 171-172.
6. Wilkinson, pp. 181-183; see also John Gribbin and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences (New York: Bantam, 1989), pp. 243-247.

For all the list of "coincidences", see John Leslie's book
Universes.

Love,
Nelson

Truthseeker,

<i>Many scientists nowdays doubt about the inflationary theory. There are many puzzles that may prove it wrong... </i>

Yes. That's how science works. The inflationary theory is one more idea which may turn out to be wrong. Nothing is fixed in stone in science. However, having said that, the inflationary theory is the theory which best explains the observations at the present time.

Also, bear in mind that inflation is but one portion of the big bang theory. No scientist doubts the broad features of the big bang theory. There is only real questioning about the details.

<i>I'm talking about genetic evolution... breeding and randomly exchanging genes... until you get it... </i>

Are you claiming that random exchange of genes does not happen, then? I think you'll find it does.

<i>No. They continue developing more and more theories to try to explain a random universe...</i>

How many times do I need to say it? <b>No</b> theory can explain a random universe. If it's random, there's nothing ordered which can be explained. Fortunately, our universe is not random. It has laws which we can discover.

<i>and we still don't have any evidence of parallel universes...</i>

Yes, that's true. So what? No scientist is claiming that parallel universes <b>must</b> exist.

I said: Nelson, before you start criticising scientists and science and the scientific method, don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something about them?

You replied: <i>I guess this should be adressed to you...</i>

Nelson, I guess your arrogance is probably due to your immaturity. You would learn more quickly if you didn't start by assuming that you already know everything worth knowing. You're putting up barriers for yourself.

James R,


How many times do I need to say it? No theory can explain a random universe. If it's random, there's nothing ordered which can be explained. Fortunately, our universe is not random. It has laws which we can discover.

That's NOT what the majority of scientists says...
Have you actually read my last post...? :bugeye: :eek:


Nelson, I guess your arrogance is probably due to your immaturity. You would learn more quickly if you didn't start by assuming that you already know everything worth knowing. You're putting up barriers for yourself.

I don't even need to reply that...:rolleyes:


Xev,


'Many scientists' is an argument from authority and quite useless. What puzzles that may prove inflationary theory wrong?
I don't know how to explain that as well as a scientist...
But it's something wrong about a alternative explanation for redshift and the inflationary theory in relation to the radiation background. The alternative explanation is that the universe is NOT expanding and that the redshift is a sign of the collision between our universe and a parallel one...


Why not?

It is evident...
Because scientists are usually atheists...


No, you're confusing mutation and natural selection. Mutation is random, but natural selection is not.

They are intimatly liked though...

Love,
Nelson

Nelson:

"But it's something wrong about a alternative explanation for redshift and the inflationary theory in relation to the radiation background. The alternative explanation is that the universe is NOT expanding and that the redshift is a sign of the collision between our universe and a parallel one..."

Hmmm. Even if so, so what? That's how science works.

"It is evident...
Because scientists are usually atheists..."

Science itself (the scientific method) isn't affected by scientists.

In any case, you have a point -

Science is about the search for truth. Religion, being often false, is often in conflict with us. When religion learns to stay out of our way, any dispute will end.

"They are intimatly liked though..."

Yes they are. Random mutations are the petrol in the car of evolution...

Xev,


Hmmm. Even if so, so what? That's how science works.
As long as you don't base a whole bunch of new theories in unproved hypothesis... otherwise it's transformed in scientific mysitcism...


When religion learns to stay out of our way, any dispute will end.

It actually happens the other way around...

Love,
Nelson

Nelson:


As long as you don't base a whole bunch of new theories in unproved hypothesis... otherwise it's transformed in scientific mysitcism...

Ummmm, no. As long as theories are proven, or a scientist admits that they aren't, it is not mysticism at all.


It actually happens the other way around...

How's that?

Religion will eventually learn to stay out of our way.:cool:

Xev,


Ummmm, no. As long as theories are proven, or a scientist admits that they aren't, it is not mysticism at all.
Did you understood what I said...?:bugeye:


How's that?

Science will eventually learn to stay out of the way of Religion...

As my pastor says, if we (church) were in the governement, the hospitals wouldn't be closing (this is happening in BC...). Scientists and politicians are still in our way... and look what they do... :rolleyes:

Love,
Nelson

Did you understood what I said...?:bugeye:

Ummm hmm. Perhaps you meant somthing different?


Science will eventually learn to stay out of the way of Religion...

Naw. Look at the way scientific knowledge is expanding, while religious 'knowledge' is static. Look at the number of scientists - increases every year.


As my pastor says, if we (church) were in the governement, the hospitals wouldn't be closing (this is happening in BC...). Scientists and politicians are still in our way... and look what they do...

Actually, if you were in the government, you'd be burning witches, heretics and infidels.

Luckily, Canada and the U.S.A have fairly strong separation of church and state.

I'm watching a cheap crappy movie right now which is full of nekkid women. If a religious organisation ran this particular state, I might not be able to watch such films any more. I'd have to move to Amsterdam if that happened... :)

*Waves a broadsword and exhorts her troops*

We must go there and tell the fundies, that they may take our lives, they may take our Tiffany Minx flicks, but they may never take

OUR FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Xev,


Ummm hmm. Perhaps you meant somthing different?
Ok... forget it...:bugeye:


Naw. Look at the way scientific knowledge is expanding, while religious 'knowledge' is static. Look at the number of scientists - increases every year.

Religious wisdom is forever...
We already got there... we are just waiting for you...:D


Actually, if you were in the government, you'd be burning witches, heretics and infidels.

No, we wouldn't. We would be running everything well and we wouldn't be causing any war...

Atheists in other hand...
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen027.gif
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen026.gif
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen017.gif
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen090.gif
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen056.gif
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen093.gif
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen089.gif
http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/sehrgrosse/grosse040.gif

...
Love,
Nelson

Groovy pictures.

*Launches into a rendition of 'Scots hae wie wi Wallace bred'*


No, we wouldn't. We would be running everything well and we wouldn't be causing any war...

Nelson, google 'Spanish inquisition', 'Thirty years war', 'witch hunts europe eastern' and 'Giordano Bruno'. For starters.

Purty emoticons. I can only offer pictures of purty woooman.
My militant athiest persona. (Ahem - as opposed to my other personalities ;))

http://www.strangersinparadise.com/images/issues/volume03issue16b.jpg

Xev,

I already talked about that about... ehhh... more than 5 times with you...

How many people "holy" wars(that weren't even caused by religious people...:rolleyes: ) killed?

How many people were killed by weapons invented by scientists?

... *sights...

Love,
Nelson

TS,

I believe you may be trying to use the word "sighs", which is similar to "sights" but has different meaning.

Oooopss... :D

How many people "holy" wars(that weren't even caused by religious people... ) killed?

I'd place it in the range of millions....

Edit for figures:

9/11: ~3900 people (Americans and Afghans killed by accident)

Witch hunts: 600,000 to as high as 9,000,000 - I'm using a middle figure of 1 million.

Spanish Inquisition: 3,000 conservative

Thirty Years War - 6 million at the lowest

Ulster Rebellion of 1641 - ~100,000 - conservative

St.Bartholomew's day massacre: ~4000, conservative

Crusades: ~9 million people

Persecution of Pagans: Unknown, possibly 50,000 - 2 million. I'm going with 20,000 to be extremely conservative.

Persecution of Jews by Romans: ~100,000

Spontaneous Christian Pogrom in 1374: ~10,000

All told: 16,241,800 human beings at the least. There are other wars I've left out - the current Middle East conflict, because that is not wholly religious, and the wars of early Islam, and several persecutions of Jews.....


How many people were killed by weapons invented by scientists?

None. Well, maybe one person who was hit on the head when a gun fell off a shelf....

Actually Nelson, we've gone over this. Holy wars have caused much more death. And your weapons killing people that you blame on atheism? Like we've argued before, no one kills in the name of atheism. Hitler was a Christian remember (and dont bullshit me about saying all these people weren't 'real christians' because it doesnt matter. Then I'll just say the inventors of the atom bomb and such weren't 'real scientists'. - whether they met your definition of a christian or not, they were still theists).

Can you name me one completely peaceful nation run based on religious Jews/Moslems/Christians/Catholics? Over history.

And oh yeah, it was still theists who ordered the building of and use of the scientific weapons.

Holy wars have caused much more death.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
:D:D:D:D


And oh yeah, it was still theists who ordered the building of and use of the scientific weapons.

...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D

Nelson, Tyler:

16,241,800 human beings at the least from only the wars I've mentioned.

Nelson, seems you can't respond to Tyler. Pity that.

But his point remains, weapons are bought and used by thiests.

Are you here to try and prove your points or just laugh at other people who believe in truth?

Here, let me give you a slight example....


http://www.lepg.org/wars.htm
- This site shows 7 wars fought between only one areas worth of religious people in just one century, due to religion.

http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/jehad.htm
- This one gives a brief description of Jihad's with a few examples of them

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0841497.html
- More religious wars in one area from just one century

http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/thirtyyearswar.html
- A couple more incidents

http://www.beyond.fr/history/religion.html
- Still more

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h19-eu.html
- It goes on.....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980511/world_.the_religious_war2.html
- Ditto




Roosevelt a theist? Yes. Hitler? Yes. How about the Presidents who ruled over Vietnam or Iraq?



Like I said, the mark of a true moron.......

Christ Tyler, thanks a whole fucking lot. More work for me.

16,241,800 human beings at the least from only the wars I've mentioned. I'm not going to add Tyler's on, but I suspect that with his, 20,000,000 is a good approximation.

P.S: The only athiest (very nominally, he was more agnostic than athiest, but....) president was Abraham Lincoln. He 'freed the slaves' and willingly gave his life for his country. He was a great man.

Jefferson, Madision, Paine, Adams, Franklin and Washington were all Deists.

Hehe, yup!

And no,m its more than 20,000,000

The Catholic/Protestant thing alone is a ton.

I won't post everything again...
Go back to that other thread where I clearly show that atheist wars killed much more...

Besides that, there are NO theist wars, only ignorant wars...

Just an example...
If the Bible says:
"Love one another"
why the heck Christians would create wars if the Bible says that? Unless they were REALLY ignorant...:bugeye: :bugeye: :eek:

Theists don't kill.
Weapons created by sick scientists full of rationalism and hypocrisy kills.
Nuclear bombs kills.
Hiroshima and Nagazaqui disapeared from the map. How many people were there all alone?
How many people killed in the First World War?
And the Second World War?

How much ignorance do I still have to tolerate in this world??:bugeye: :eek: :bugeye: :rolleyes: :o :(

*Sulks*

Fine, I'll stay in and compile this list. (Xev, it's raining out, you weren't going anywhere!)

So, it's got to be more than 20,000. Let's review our wars so far:

9/11: ~3900 people (Americans and Afghans killed by accident)

Witch hunts: 600,000 to as high as 9,000,000 - I'm using a middle figure of 1 million.

Spanish Inquisition: 3,000 conservative

Thirty Years War - 6 million at the lowest

Ulster Rebellion of 1641 - ~100,000 - conservative

St.Bartholomew's day massacre: ~4000, conservative

Crusades: ~9 million people

Persecution of Pagans: 2 million.

Persecution of Jews by Romans: ~100,000

Spontaneous Christian Pogrom in 1374: ~10,000

Which adds up to: 18,220,900 human beings

So, let's add some more:

French Wars of Religion: 100,000 Protestants

Currrent Sudenese Civil War: 1 million

Religious tribal wars in Lebanon: 150,000

Battle of Antwerp, 1576: Civilian death toll: 8,000

People killed by India's Thugs: ~1 Million

Buddhist Sinhalese vs. Hindu Tamils: 20,000

Sikhs vs. Punjabs, 1992: 3,800

Arian Schism: 1,000,000

Holy Wars against Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Huguenots: 1,000,000

Various people slaughtered by Isrealites: ~976,000 if you accept Biblical sources

Japanese Christians killed in Shimnaburu rebellion: 36,895

Timurlane slaughters 100,000 Hindu prisoners.

Selim the Grim massacres 40,000 Anatolian Shi'ites

Christians persecuted by Roman Pagans: 2,000

Traditional feminists would claim that suttee is a instrument of male domination or somthing....I think that Indian suttee has religious motivations, so I am adding it:

62,400 in one century.

Well, I'm adding 'em up again. Anyone know of more religious wars?

Well, I have 5,499,095 people killed. 5,499,095 + 18,220,900 = 23,719,995 people killed for religious reasons in the past 2000 years. At least.

Exceedingly good source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

P.S:

Just an example...
If the Bible says:
"Love one another"
why the heck Christians would create wars if the Bible says that? Unless they were REALLY ignorant...

Where does the Bible say that? It also says to 'smite the Amalkalites' and to 'slay' Jesus' enemies.


Theists don't kill.

Nelson, that is an incredibly stupid statement, haven't you been following current events?


Weapons created by sick scientists full of rationalism and hypocrisy kills.

Guns don't kill. People kill. ;)


Nuclear bombs kills.

Humans kill.


Hiroshima and Nagazaqui disapeared from the map. How many people were there all alone?
How many people killed in the First World War?
And the Second World War?

Hitler was a Christian.....


How much ignorance do I still have to tolerate in this world??

All of it. And you have an ego the size of Manhatten.

PPS:

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! There haven't been any athiest wars!

EDIT AGAIN: Damn math errors.

Edit again: Damn it all, another math error. I'm switching to scientific notation..

Adding on the Aztec human sacrifices:


To inaugurate a new temple prisoners were murdered by the thousands. The victims formed long lines along the main roads into the city while waiting to mount the central temples steps and forcibly laid on an alter. Then their breasts were cut open and their heart torn out by one of the four sacrificers at work. A figure of 80,400 thus sacrificed in four days has been handed down, but Nigel Davies, the author of a foremost work on Human Sacrifice, rightly questions this (by my calculations if each sacrificer took just one minute to complete his bloody task, it would then take near 14 days working 24 hours a day to kill this number), and even believes that 20,000 seems high.107 The Aztecs conducted sacrifices as a matter of course and often accumulated the skulls of their victims on racks outside their cities. One Conquistador wrote of a rack outside of Tenochtitlan with about 136,000 skulls. If the collection of skulls started in 1428, this was an average addition of 1500 skulls per year.108

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM

So, I am going with 136,000 - a figure that is probably inflated, but considering the age of the Aztec empire......

Which brings us to 23,855,995

How can a human being be as dumb as you are?

"Go back to that other thread where I clearly show that atheist wars killed much more..."

You never showed that. In fact, you haven't provided ONE stat to back you up. I hope and pray that one day you get arrested for murder. Then when the judge looks at you and says what proof you have of your innocence, you'll look at him and say; 'I'm a Christian! I don't murder!' and expect to get off.



"Besides that, there are NO theist wars, only ignorant wars..."

So what you're saying is that a true theist would not start a war? But that atheists do? So all those millions of dead at the hands of religion are all just not true theists?

Problem number one with your stupidity is that, even if they didn't follow the religion like you interput it, they are NOT atheists. An atheist, by definition, does not believe in God or does not believe God is necessary or logical. It is quite obvious all these people (including Hitler), believed God existed. Therefore, they are theists.

Second problem. You are suggesting that if a 'true' Christian ran the world, there would be no wars, correct? Well, fine, I don't give a flying fuck. If a peaceful atheist ran the world there would be no wars. If I ran the world there would be no wars. What the hell does this matter?




Oh yeah, here ya go....

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
- Exodus 35:2

And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
- Exodus 21:17

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
- Genesis 19:24

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
- Hosea 13:16

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;...Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:...But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
- Genesis 13:6-13:9

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:...And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
- Deuteronomy 21:18-21:21

Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death
- Leviticus 24:16



........Just a couple.

Xev,

Second World War: 20.000.000
First World War: 8.500.000

Total: 28.500.000 people
Sources: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-list.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second

Er... isn't that already more than all those that you cited...?:bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes:
You cited: 23,719,995 people

*sights...

Those wars you cited weren't caused by religious people... they were caused by ignorant people...


Where does the Bible say that? It also says to 'smite the Amalkalites' and to 'slay' Jesus' enemies.

Here it is one of the places where this is said...
And it also says about you (atheists...)

1 John 2:7-11 :
"7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes."


About me:

1 John 3:1-3
"1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."


More about Love:

Ephesians 5: 1-16: :
"1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil."


1 Corinthians 13 :
"1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

I could go on and on...


Nelson, that is an incredibly stupid statement, haven't you been following current events?

Yes...:bugeye: It's not stupid, it's the pure Truth...!


Humans kill.

Atheists, to be more precise...:eek:


Hitler was a Christian.....

Xev, that is an incredibly stupid statement...


All of it. And you have an ego the size of Manhatten.
Mine? I though it was thine...

PPS:
GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! There haven't been any theists wars! :bugeye:

Some Atheists Wars:
War on Terrorism, First and Second World Wars, China vc Tibet, Vietnam, etc... :bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes:

Love,
Nelson

Wasn't this thread about scientific mysticism? Why all the religion? This is the Philosophy forum, remember?

Nelson:

Those wars you cited weren't caused by religious people... they were caused by ignorant people...

Fine then! No real scientist would develop weapons, therefore, scientists have never developed weapons.


Atheists, to be more precise...

Umm, Nelson, I don't think you know what an athiest is.... :p

*Wanders off to kill people*

Nelson, I don't wanna kill people but I am an athiest. Can I just hit them on the head with a mackrel? :D


Xev, that is an incredibly stupid statement...

Hitler was a Christian.

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. "

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html


War on Terrorism,

You mean the defensive war of a nation led by a Christian president against the agression of Usama Bin Ladin and other Muslims?


First and Second World Wars,

You mean the wars fought primarily by Christians over territory?


China vc Tibet, Vietnam, etc...

You mean the war of a Communist state against a Tibetan Buddhist state?

What athiests? Where?

Xev,


Fine then! No real scientist would develop weapons, therefore, scientists have never developed weapons.

:bugeye:... :eek:


“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. "

This confronts to Jesus statement:

"Love your enemies."
This already proves he was not Christian, he was just justifying in the wrong way. The same of Osama bin Laden, as Muslim...:rolleyes:


You mean the defensive war of a nation led by a Christian president against the agression of Usama Bin Ladin and other Muslims?

No. I meant the war fought to get oil in the Middle East..:bugeye:


You mean the wars fought primarily by Christians over territory?

WHAT!?!? What your government have been putting inside your head????:bugeye: :eek:


You mean the war of a Communist state against a Tibetan Buddhist state?

Yes...:bugeye:
Communists are atheists, Tibetans are Buddhists... simply a war of atheists against religion...:bugeye: :rolleyes:


What athiests? Where?

Everywhere...!!:bugeye:

Love,
Nelson

"This confronts to Jesus statement:

"Love your enemies."
This already proves he was not Christian, he was just justifying in the wrong way. The same of Osama bin Laden, as Muslim..."

What about if they followed all those horribly violent and disgusting quotes from the Bible that Xev and I post?



"No. I meant the war fought to get oil in the Middle East.."

America is fighting to get Oil out of Afghanistan? What have you been snorting?



"WHAT!?!? What your government have been putting inside your head????"

The leaders of hte nations in WWI were religious. Hitler and Roosevelt (who dropped the a bombs) ewre theists.

Whether you want to fucking think it or not, these people were all theists. They may not see religion as the exact same as you, but that doesn't mean anything. 'Theist' does not mean 'someone who agrees with Nelson on religion'. If they were all theists, then clearly they were not atheist launched wars.


"Yes...
Communists are atheists, Tibetans are Buddhists... simply a war of atheists against religion.."

Communists are agnostic really. The idea of God is useless to them. Yes atheists against theists. So there's one example of many that were wars with theists.

Tyler,


What about if they followed all those horribly violent and disgusting quotes from the Bible that Xev and I post?

Perhaps they are ignorant enough to ignore the core of the Bible and follow a couple of statements that should not be taken by their literal meaning... They would be following about 5% of the Bible, or Qu'ran...:bugeye: :eek:


America is fighting to get Oil out of Afghanistan? What have you been snorting?

Go to my thread "UFOs in WTC!!" and you will see that Northwind agrees with me...:bugeye: :eek:


The leaders of hte nations in WWI were religious. Hitler and Roosevelt (who dropped the a bombs) ewre theists.
Are you saying that Roosevelt dropped the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagazaqui because he hated the Japanese people, as they were not from his religion...:bugeye: :eek: :o

Love,
Nelson

This confronts to Jesus statement:

"Love your enemies."
This already proves he was not Christian, he was just justifying in the wrong way. The same of Osama bin Laden, as Muslim...

Okay, so, if no true Christian would attack, no true scientist would build weapons of mass destruction.


No. I meant the war fought to get oil in the Middle East..

So, what, America was not attacked on 9.11?


WHAT!?!? What your government have been putting inside your head????

WW1 was sparked by the assasination of Franz Ferdinand. At the time, europe was entangled by a series of alliences and time tables that made pulling back from the brink of war rather difficult.

WW2 was sparked by Hitler's invasion of Poland.

Communists are not necessarily athiests. The first Christians were commies.

The first Christians weren't communists...

Ah, Nelson dear, they shared thier property.

Acts 4:33
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
4:34
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
4:35
And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
4:36
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
4:37
Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
5:1
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
5:2
And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
5:3
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
5:4
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5:5
And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
5:6
And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
5:7
And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
5:8
And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
5:9
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
5:10
Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

See:

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/galeria/sites/com2000/concept/concept.html

http://rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/912/barel2.htm

"Perhaps they are ignorant enough to ignore the core of the Bible and follow a couple of statements that should not be taken by their literal meaning... They would be following about 5% of the Bible, or Qu'ran..."



"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
- Exodus 35:2

And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
- Exodus 21:17

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
- Genesis 19:24

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
- Hosea 13:16

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;...Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:...But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
- Genesis 13:6-13:9

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:...And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
- Deuteronomy 21:18-21:21

Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death
- Leviticus 24:16"

How can you know which ones to take literally and which not? Some of these seem like pretty straight forward orders.



"Go to my thread "UFOs in WTC!!" and you will see that Northwind agrees with me..."

And Xev agrees with me, what hte hell is your point? Because some other person on sciforums agrees with you does not prove anything.




"Are you saying that Roosevelt dropped the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagazaqui because he hated the Japanese people, as they were not from his religion..."

Nope, just pointing out that all major wars were caused by or largely involved theists. Which was the topic of our debate, in case you forgot.

Xev,

Yes... but that's only one thing in common... Communism is not a religion...
Actually neither Christianism... Christianism is a relationship...

Tyler,


And Xev agrees with me, what hte hell is your point? Because some other person on sciforums agrees with you does not prove anything.

I was just saying that I'm not the only one that see what's really happen on that case...:bugeye:

Love,
Nelson

So then what are you claiming, that a peaceful theist hasn't started wars? Does anyone else think that's the stupidest comment ever? I could just as easily say that a peaceful atheist has never caused a war.

And I pose my original question again; can you name one theist-run nation which never started or largely participated in a war?

Tyler,


So then what are you claiming, that a peaceful theist hasn't started wars? Does anyone else think that's the stupidest comment ever? I could just as easily say that a peaceful atheist has never caused a war.

Peaceful...?
Theist...?
Well... I'm saying that if someone starts a war because thinks that his or her religion is the right, but ignore the teachings of his or her religion is or ignorant or... ignorant...:bugeye:

Besides that, a theist can start a war that has nothing to do with religion. That is just political...:bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes:


And I pose my original question again; can you name one theist-run nation which never started or largely participated in a war?

Theists don't run nations for a loooooooooong time...:bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes:

Love,
Nelson

I completely fail to understand why you people continue to argue with this person..... don't you have anything better to do? Like, bang your heads against a wall or something?

Squid (Sid?), we argue in the hopes of showing him a little bit of reality. And because we're also stupid ourselves!


"Peaceful...?
Theist...?
Well... I'm saying that if someone starts a war because thinks that his or her religion is the right, but ignore the teachings of his or her religion is or ignorant or... ignorant..."

Ignorant yes. That does not stop the war from being a theistic war. Whether they are wrong on their interputations of their religion or not, they believe they are doing a theistic duty. Therefore, it is a theistic war.



"Theists don't run nations for a loooooooooong time..."

There's the area called the Middle East. A country called, I think, Israel is run by Jews. Oh and there's a couple nations I think one is called (though I may be wrong) Egypt or Saudi Arabia run by Moslems. Oh and America is run by a Christian. You can argue this as much as you want on how these people don't follow religion the way YOU interput it. but YOUR interputation is NOT the only interputation.

And even so, my question remains.......can you name ONE theistic run nation that didn't have a war?

Originally posted by Tyler

And even so, my question remains.......can you name ONE theistic run nation that didn't have a war?

As much as I hate to say this Tyler... Malaysia. the most peaceful muslim nation I've encountered. Has it's problems with non-native residents, to the extent of non-malays not being allowed to be in government positions among other things, but for all that seems to stay well out of martial affairs. Mind you, that's only one nation out of many.

Tyler,


Ignorant yes. That does not stop the war from being a theistic war. Whether they are wrong on their interputations of their religion or not, they believe they are doing a theistic duty. Therefore, it is a theistic war.

Not consequence of the Religion itself though... but of those who use it...


And even so, my question remains.......can you name ONE theistic run nation that didn't have a war?

I don't know any theistic run nation...:bugeye:

Love,
Nelson

"Not consequence of the Religion itself though... but of those who use it..."

My point stands. Religion has caused many wars, and most wars have been started/fought by theists. And no war has been the consequence of atheism.


"I don't know any theistic run nation..."

I mean any nation run by a theist.

"I don't know any theistic run nation..."

Pakistan. Run under Islamic law, mostly. :mad:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0519pakistanrape19.html

Peace.

And no war has been the consequence of atheism.
...:bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes:

What? Are you considering actually making a reply? Because that would be something new.

Nelson, please tell us what wars were a consequence of athiesm. Please don't just indicate disdain, tell us where we are wrong.

Cold war... is it's being discussed in another thread...

How in the lord's name was the Cold War BECAUSE of atheism?

Demon pizza caused the cold war. :p


A bit late, but,
Xev said "Are you mental? Show me one war, ONE WAR fought over science."
The Cold War

__________________
Free the Mind

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

05-19- 02 12:33 AM


Asguard
Yoda


Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Melborne Australia
Posts: 1368
no that war was forght about political ideology

__________________
Adams quote "people suck"

Hafh'drn Asguard:
Cthulhu's High Priest
(so watch out Adam)

There is only one evil race, and its the HUMAN race

In an infinite universe all things are not only possible, but probable

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

05-19- 02 01:59 AM

thoth
Junior Member

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8
Political Ideology was the public perception.
Keeping a technological advantage was what it was all about.
CCCP was destroyed financially in its attempt to keep up with America and its allies scientific and technological advances

__________________
Free the Mind

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

05-19- 02 02:46 AM





Xev
Warrior of the absurd


Registered: Jan 2002
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 1641
A: That was not a war.

B: Why in the fuck do you think they wanted a technological edge? To win the 'war'.

C: The USSR fell for a multitude of reasons, that being one. That hardly makes it a war fought over or for science.

Welcome to Sciforums.

__________________
Truth above pride and ego. Truth above faith and the desire to believe. Truth above all.

You have already grasped that Sisyphus is the absurd hero. He is, as much through his passions as through his torture. His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing. This is the price that must be paid for the passions of this earth --Camus

Demon pizza is evil --FoxMulder

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

05-19- 02 01:53 PM





Tyler
Senior Member

Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 827
The Cold War was, to steal a term from Carlin, a war about who had a bigger dick. Besides the fact that no direct war was ever fought, the battles between Yanks and Soviets was about America wanting to be the most powerful nation in the world and the Soviets wanting to be the most powerful force in the world. It was not a war fought because one side wanted to have better science. The science involved was a further continuation of showing who's dick was bigger. Actually, who's dick was smarter. The Soviets claimed they were so America had to try and upstage them, and vice versa.

__________________
Keep you doped with religion and sex and tv. And you think you're so clever and classless and free. But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see. A working class hero is something to be.
- John Lennon

Great are not those who hold the answers, but those who pose the questions.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

05-19- 02 02:14 PM


TruthSeeker
Love Spirit

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Canada (now)
Posts: 1558
I certainly agree with thoth...

There's the conversation. As you can see, it is about science, not athiesm, and is demonstrably false.

Science and atheism goes hand-to-hand... you can't have one without other... besides that, it's not false...:bugeye:

"Science and atheism goes hand-to-hand..."

How romantic. :p

"you can't have one without other... besides that, it's not false..."

But I proved it false, Nelson.


A: That was not a war.

B: Why in the fuck do you think they wanted a technological edge? To win the 'war'.

C: The USSR fell for a multitude of reasons, that being one. That hardly makes it a war fought over or for science.

Science played a rule in the cold war as important as theism in "theist" wars... If there are "theist" wars, for the same reason there are wars fought over atheism...:bugeye:

If you coincider THOSE examples as theist wars you have also to coincider the atheist one, linked with science...:bugeye: :eek:

Science was a section of the competition between America and the Soviets. Let me put it this way, there have been wars STARTED because of theist doctrine. The Cold War did not come into existence because of atheism or science. It came into existence because of arrogance, necessity for power and political differences. All things which are part of human nature regardless of a theist or atheist.

It came into existence because of arrogance, necessity for power and political differences.

The same to your "theist" wars...:bugeye:

Nope.
Some of the wars started by theists were due to these things, without a doubt. But there were tons that occured because of religious doctrine and differences.

But there were tons that occured because of religious doctrine and differences.
?????

Btw... who hi-jacked this thread...? Can we go back to the topic? I guess this discussion in wars have finished looong time ago...:bugeye:

"Science played a rule in the cold war as important as theism in "theist" wars... If there are "theist" wars, for the same reason there are wars fought over atheism..."

Technology fueled the Cold War, just as technology fueled every war that ever happened. This does not mean that the Cold War was fought over technology. Religion fueled theistic wars, in addition to science.

As Hef put it: "We're seperated by our myths".

But name one atheist who started a war. None.

So what does that do to your 'athiestic war' theory? Sorry Nelson, you're wrong. There has never been a war fought over athiesm.

Best to admit that and drop the subject.

Originally posted by Xev

But name one atheist who started a war. None.


ME!!!

I started:
- 30 Years War.
- War of the Roses.
- WW1.
- WW2.
- Vietnam.
- Korea.
- All of the Crusades.
- Dacian Wars.
- And many others.

Why? Coz I'm mean and nasty and want to eradicate religion! My atheism will rule in a purified world, dammit!

(Okay, so I'm sick, tired, and hungry.)

Best to admit that and drop the subject.

The same to "theist" wars...:bugeye:


Best to admit that and drop the subject.

I've already said that...:


Btw... who hi-jacked this thread...? Can we go back to the topic? I guess this discussion in wars have finished looong time ago...
:bugeye: :eek:

Love,
Nelson

mysticism is the ability to believe in something and its exact opposite at the same time without being bothered by the contradiction.

believing in something without proof is simply 'belief'.