The Religion Discussion

[MD Marketers]

Ok I been dreading this moment a long time now. Gonna start reading from page 1.
If I suffer from an aneurism, know that it was for a good cause. Wish me luck.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Ok I been dreading this moment a long time now. Gonna start reading from page 1.
If I suffer from an aneurism, know that it was for a good cause. Wish me luck.

for fun, set up a scoring card. let us know who you think is winning

[MD Marketers]

Ok I been dreading this moment a long time now. Gonna start reading from page 1.
If I suffer from an aneurism, know that it was for a good cause. Wish me luck.

for fun, set up a scoring card. let us know who you think is winning

On page 10 now. I'm actually having more fun than I expected. Maybe I might start replying all of the posts from 2009 in 1 large reply post packed full of deductive reasoning without any biases. Might start worshipping the edit button before this is over lol

Who knows, it might be put to some good use in the end.

[ruffneck_12]

boyyyy, is bess u put that time and effort to some charitable organisation, and actually make a difference in the world lol

Debating religion is useless, is bout 660 pages of opinions/trolls, and 9 pages of facts

[Slartibartfast]

Godspeed MD.

[MD Marketers]

boyyyy, is bess u put that time and effort to some charitable organisation, and actually make a difference in the world lol

Debating religion is useless, is bout 660 pages of opinions/trolls, and 9 pages of facts

I'm on page 50.
Beginning to think I should find a way to commercialize atheism before it's too late

[Slartibartfast]

I just want to apologize for makin sh!t difficult for you. When you reach my long winded replies around page 600 you will see what I mean

[ruffneck_12]

boyyyy, is bess u put that time and effort to some charitable organisation, and actually make a difference in the world lol

Debating religion is useless, is bout 660 pages of opinions/trolls, and 9 pages of facts

I'm on page 50.
Beginning to think I should find a way to commercialize atheism before it's too late

sell containers containing a perfect vacuum

[Slartibartfast]

boyyyy, is bess u put that time and effort to some charitable organisation, and actually make a difference in the world lol

Debating religion is useless, is bout 660 pages of opinions/trolls, and 9 pages of facts

I'm on page 50.
Beginning to think I should find a way to commercialize atheism before it's too late

sell containers containing a perfect vacuum

Dyson beat him to it

[MG Man]

atheism is already commercialized....books, novelty tee shirts, FSM merchandise etc

[MD Marketers]

atheism is already commercialized....books, novelty tee shirts, FSM merchandise etc

I'm talking on a scale on par with modern day churches.
Something you can retire on. Lol
The commercialized atheism you are speaking about can be done with a credit card & facebook page.

[MG Man]

why would atheists subscribe to that format?
There actually are atheist 'churches', where like minded folk come together to chill and read scientific papers and such, but atheists don't need a 'leader' to stand in front a crowd and inspire them to not believe in god...duuuh

[Slartibartfast]

But it would still be nice to have a place that I can host band practice for free

[MG Man]

yuh lookin for a really REALLY shiddy Bass player orr?

[maj. tom]

Can I haz of joinings the band 2?

[Slartibartfast]

Once I on jums. Maj Tom what you playin?

[nareshseep]

I guess lead guitar / vocalist will be me. Brace yourselves for thundershowers.
First song kill all the believers and there will be peace

[MD Marketers]

On page 100 now.
This thread should be renamed Humes vs Ignorance I think

[Slartibartfast]

You watching all the videos that were posted up as well? Cuz I know Habit replied to a couple questions with hour long videos.

[MD Marketers]

You watching all the videos that were posted up as well? Cuz I know Habit replied to a couple questions with hour long videos.

Just a few of them. The rest are on my to do list.

I think the posters on these forums need to consider my next couple of statements properly before their next post.

Honestly speaking when communicating a point to someone it is better to communicate direct and exchange dialogue, because watching a pre written article or video means you cannot exchange points or object to any irrational points that were made.
If you were to come across a point in the article/video that was misleading or confusing, how then can one move forward to listen/read the rest of the article/video. The author is not there to explain it better. Why should we continue viewing if the author has expressed a seemingly false premise & is not there to explain it?
The author would be continuing his discussion based on a seemingly false premise (from the perspective of the viewer) and although they may get some valid points in before the end, it would be too much of a time waster to continue viewing. What are the chances they would correct their false premise later on in the article as opposed to editing it in the first place?
A truly persuasive article is one that doesn't have any false premises & the conclusions are valid/true, but even better than that is an active discussion whereby false premises can be corrected & thus the chances are greater that we would gain more meaningful information than reading an article.

This is the problem with quoting from "Religious Scriptures". It I also the same problem we get when we ask someone to explain something to us and we get directed to an article or video or http://www.google.com

Many times in this thread the posters continue to do this when asked to explain a point. They link a video or an article rather than trying to properly reason how they came to that understanding.
This is called an "argument from authority" or "an appeal to authority" because you yourself are incapable or simply "don't have the time" to explain how you came to believe what you believe.

I personally take time to explain something using some form of objective or deductive reasoning. I also admit I have a false premise if I am presented with a reasonable argument as to why.
A truly honest person should admit when they have a false premise after it has been shown to them or at least they should defend "why" it is not a false premise.
I've noticed in this thread that some users continuously ignore others when perfectly reasonable explanations refute their premise and continue speaking as if everyone is supposed to accept their undefended premise in the face of refutation.

This is the foundation of dishonesty

People don't take seemingly dishonest people seriously. They will start to be ignored. I already started ignoring certain user names in this thread when scrolling through the pages because of this very same intellectual dishonesty they continue to portray.

Some may say "why defend my point when the objector's reasoning is continuously stupid". The short answer to this at least patronize their point of view a few times first before labelling them as stupid & then you can start ignoring them not because you think all their points would be stupid henceforth but because you simply "don't have the time to waste"

[Daran]

MD Marketers, I mean this with absolutely no offense, but do you have aspergers?

One of my best friends is and there's some very similar traits i see in you both..

[MD Marketers]

MD Marketers, I mean this with absolutely no offense, but do you have aspergers?

One of my best friends is and there's some very similar traits i see in you both..

Asperger's, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.

Are you therefore stating that your friend has the above characteristics & you also observe these traits in my writing patterns?
You have observed "difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."
Can you explain the correlation? I don't see what could have given you this opinion.

Also me being offended is not subject to your intention.
If an action offends me I will take defense regardless of the perpetrators intention.

[Advent]

*ded*

[MD Marketers]

I am a true advocate of science & philosophy. When I see someone (seemingly) incorrectly use science to prove a point I think it needs to be addressed.

As I'm reading this thread I came across the statement:
"the universe was created in 6 days"

I immediately began to wonder:
Can the universe be created in 6 days?

My initial answer was no because:
If a day means one full rotation of the earth on it's axis. Then days could not have existed when the universe was created. Thus the universe could never have been created in any amount of days, let alone 6.

but then it had me wondering:
How could I explain properly how long it took to create the present universe if I needed to use a unit of time that isn't explained by use of astronomy.

After some thought I reasoned that:
I would need to describe time as something that isn't an event/process in astronomy. How can I describe time without using time in the description. That would be a logical fallacy, circular argument.

So out came the physics text books and after a few hours of research I found only one useful description of time that helps me understand how to describe time without using time in the description.

Time is simply the amount of changes in the physical state of the universe based on the perspective of a specific thing in the universe. This is why a time dilated being ages differently to others.

What this means is time is a matter of perspective. Therefore if a physicist spends 1 light hour to do something, he does not spend the same amount of time as 1 earth hour.

If the physicist dies before 1 light hour passes does 1 light hour still exist from his perspective? No.

Therefore time can only exist if something exists.

Now that I had a better understanding of what time is I decided to tackle the question once more. So here goes:

Question:
Can the universe be created in 6 days?

Answer:
It depends on the perspective of something that existed when the universe was started & is still in existence today.

So I am now forced to use empathy to explain if the universe can be created in 6 days.

I choose empathy of a proton

When I did the Math the answer was:
From the perspective of a proton the universe has only been around
Roughly 298 Million years

This means if I were a proton I would not be living in a 13.8 billion year old universe.

If God were true & he did create the universe in 6 days it means the universe was created at 18152671897 times the speed of a proton. Or 1,511,323,177,857 km/h from our perspective

[maj. tom]

Is MD Marketers the same person as Effectic Designs?

[rspann]

MD, your explanation reminds me of evolution. It took nine edits to reach where it is in the end.

[MD Marketers]

MD, your explanation reminds me of evolution. It took nine edits to reach where it is in the end.

11 & counting. Got the math wrong on the first 3 attempts.
It's good now though. You can verify it with a physicist to be sure.

[nareshseep]

I am a true advocate of science & philosophy. When I see someone (seemingly) incorrectly use science to prove a point I think it needs to be addressed.

As I'm reading this thread I came across the statement:
"the universe was created in 6 days"

I immediately began to wonder:
Can the universe be created in 6 days?

My initial answer was no because:
If a day means one full rotation of the earth on it's axis. Then days could not have existed when the universe was created. Thus the universe could never have been created in any amount of days, let alone 6.

but then it had me wondering:
How could I explain properly how long it took to create the present universe if I needed to use a unit of time that isn't explained by use of astronomy.

After some thought I reasoned that:
I would need to describe time as something that isn't an event/process in astronomy. How can I describe time without using time in the description. That would be a logical fallacy, circular argument.

So out came the physics text books and after a few hours of research I found only one useful description of time that helps me understand how to describe time without using time in the description.

Time is simply the amount of changes in the physical state of the universe based on the perspective of a specific thing in the universe. This is why a time dilated being ages differently to others.

What this means is time is a matter of perspective. Therefore if a physicist spends 1 light hour to do something, he does not spend the same amount of time as 1 earth hour.

If the physicist dies before 1 light hour passes does 1 light hour still exist from his perspective? No.

Therefore time can only exist if something exists.

Now that I had a better understanding of what time is I decided to tackle the question once more. So here goes:

Question:
Can the universe be created in 6 days?

Answer:
It depends on the perspective of something that existed when the universe was started & is still in existence today.

So I am now forced to use empathy to explain if the universe can be created in 6 days.

I choose empathy of a photon to answer the question with the widely held assumption that a photon is the fastest thing in the universe.

When I did the Math the answer was:
From the perspective of a photon the universe has only been around
29610172733 days
Roughly 81 million years

This means if I were a photon I would not be living in a 13.8 billion year old universe.

If God were true & he did create the universe in 6 days (from the perspective of a universal speed limit that is faster than the speed of light) it means the universe was created at 4,935,028,789 times the speed of light. Or 410,967,891,918 km/hr from our perspective

[MD Marketers]

I am a true advocate of science & philosophy. When I see someone (seemingly) incorrectly use science to prove a point I think it needs to be addressed.

As I'm reading this thread I came across the statement:
"the universe was created in 6 days"

I immediately began to wonder:
Can the universe be created in 6 days?

My initial answer was no because:
If a day means one full rotation of the earth on it's axis. Then days could not have existed when the universe was created. Thus the universe could never have been created in any amount of days, let alone 6.

but then it had me wondering:
How could I explain properly how long it took to create the present universe if I needed to use a unit of time that isn't explained by use of astronomy.

After some thought I reasoned that:
I would need to describe time as something that isn't an event/process in astronomy. How can I describe time without using time in the description. That would be a logical fallacy, circular argument.

So out came the physics text books and after a few hours of research I found only one useful description of time that helps me understand how to describe time without using time in the description.

Time is simply the amount of changes in the physical state of the universe based on the perspective of a specific thing in the universe. This is why a time dilated being ages differently to others.

What this means is time is a matter of perspective. Therefore if a physicist spends 1 light hour to do something, he does not spend the same amount of time as 1 earth hour.

If the physicist dies before 1 light hour passes does 1 light hour still exist from his perspective? No.

Therefore time can only exist if something exists.

Now that I had a better understanding of what time is I decided to tackle the question once more. So here goes:

Question:
Can the universe be created in 6 days?

Answer:
It depends on the perspective of something that existed when the universe was started & is still in existence today.

So I am now forced to use empathy to explain if the universe can be created in 6 days.

I choose empathy of a photon to answer the question with the widely held assumption that a photon is the fastest thing in the universe.

When I did the Math the answer was:
From the perspective of a photon the universe has only been around
29610172733 days
Roughly 81 million years

This means if I were a photon I would not be living in a 13.8 billion year old universe.

If God were true & he did create the universe in 6 days (from the perspective of a universal speed limit that is faster than the speed of light) it means the universe was created at 4,935,028,789 times the speed of light. Or 410,967,891,918 km/hr from our perspective

[Slartibartfast]

I think MD just became my new favourite tuner behind the MGman/RBPhoto combo and Effective when you get him started on buses.

MD if it's not a problem please point out where you think I made mistakes in my arguments so that I can avoid them in the future.