Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 01:29:44 PM



Title: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 01:29:44 PM
  After several debates on FOX where Dawkins was very polite, courteous and logical and O'Reilly yelled and cursed at him every time, Dawkins finally got fed up and called O'Reilly unintelligent and said that the only way to have a productive debate with theists is to put on the other side theists who base their arguments for God on evidence and logical arguments rather than emotion and appeal to morality. And make no mistake about this: Dawkins is far intellectually superior to O'Reilly. Not even in the same league. Besides being an Oxford professor who occupies the same chair that belonged to Charles Darwin, Dawkins was a brilliant youth who considered studying physics and was taking calculus at age 11.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0scyrMpin5M

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 01:31:49 PM
Dawkins should not even debate O'reilly. Oreilly is a total moron and totally get destroyed whenever he tries to debate someone like Dawkins.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
Dawkins should not even debate O'reilly. Oreilly is a total moron and totally get destroyed whenever he tries to debate someone like Dawkins.

  I should post videos of all the many times O'Reilly got stomped by Dawkins, but it is really not worth it. It is like watching an adult talking down to and educating a child. Just ridiculous intellectual domination the likes of which we never see.

  People will say that Dawkins is a jackass for calling O'Reilly dumb and claiming to be smarter. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dawkins is a very polite man, very humble and never brags about anything. But O'Reilly really pushed him over the edge. He insulted Dawkins, made arguments appealing to morality and tried to pass them as loigical arguments, made funny faces ridiculing Dawkins when he made the ridiculous argument that, because science doesen't have an answer for everything, that this makes the argument for God vallid - as if the lack of scientific explanations for some phenomena means that fairy tales are real, rather than just science hasn't filled in the gaps yet. Etc.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 01:41:28 PM
  I should post videos of all the many times O'Reilly got stomped by Dawkins, but it is really not worth it. It is like watching an adult talking down to and educating a child. Just ridiculous intellectual domination the likes of which we never see.

  People will say that Dawkins is a jackass for calling O'Reilly dumb and claiming to be smarter. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dawkins is a very polite man, very humble and never brags about anything. But O'Reilly really pushed him over the edge. He insulted Dawkins, made arguments appealing to morality and tried to pass them as loigical arguments, made funny faces ridiculing Dawkins when he made the ridiculous argument that, because science doesen't have an answer for everything, that this makes the argument for God vallid - as if the lack of scientific explanations for some phenomena means that fairy tales are real, rather than just science hasn't filled in the gaps yet. Etc.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Its called "The God of the Gaps" Whenever there is a gap in scientific understanding, theists will insert God as the answer. Thus, if science can't explain something, it must have been Gods doing. I really hate that argument (that science can't prove everything). Science never claimed to be able to prove EVERYTHING. I don't think you will ever hear a scientist say that.  And if a scientist did say that, Id be very skeptical about him as a researcher and scholar.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 01:51:50 PM
Its called "The God of the Gaps" Whenever there is a gap in scientific understanding, theists will insert God as the answer. Thus, if science can't explain something, it must have been Gods doing. I really hate that argument (that science can't prove everything). Science never claimed to be able to prove EVERYTHING. I don't think you will ever hear a scientist say that.  And if a scientist did say that, Id be very skeptical about him as a researcher and scholar.

  "The scientist's quest is a tragic one: to climb the highest peaks, until the highest of them all, only to find the religious mystic at the top of it."

  I read this quote from some famous scientist. I will try to discover from who it is.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 01:54:18 PM
Its called "The God of the Gaps" Whenever there is a gap in scientific understanding, theists will insert God as the answer. Thus, if science can't explain something, it must have been Gods doing. I really hate that argument (that science can't prove everything). Science never claimed to be able to prove EVERYTHING. I don't think you will ever hear a scientist say that.  And if a scientist did say that, Id be very skeptical about him as a researcher and scholar.

Science can't prove everything because we don't understand everything.  If we did, I believe science would be able to prove it all...Let the simple people have their gods...It's good for them...It keeps things in order for the most part.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 01:56:00 PM
Science can't prove everything because we don't understand everything.  If we did, I believe science would be able to prove it all...Let the simple people have their gods...It's good for them...It keeps things in order for the most part.

I know, I totally agree that science cant prove everything. The problem is that people will forgo science because they insert God as the answer and leave well enough alone. This holds back scientific progression when you have theists inserting God as the answer into everything.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Skeletor on October 16, 2011, 01:56:34 PM
(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 01:58:10 PM
(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)

The only fuckface I hate worse the Oreilly is Hannity...


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 01:58:44 PM
(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)

hahaha, epic moron!


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 01:59:55 PM
(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)

hhaha

(http://www.geekosystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bread-toast.jpeg)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 02:03:40 PM
What I'm saying is science, CAN prove everything.  We don't have an understanding of the science yet.  It's just waiting to be found or unearthed...You are correct.  It's no different then thousands of years ago when the unexplained would be attributed to a supernatural power...That hasn't stopped science from progressing IMO although I see more for profit vs. in the name of science today.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 02:06:14 PM
What I'm saying is science, CAN prove everything.  We don't have an understanding of the science yet.  It's just waiting to be found or unearthed...You are correct.  It's no different then thousands of years ago when the unexplained would be attributed to a supernatural power...That hasn't stopped science from progressing IMO although I see more for profit vs. in the name of science today.

Good point, I agree.

Its actually more frustrating than anything, which is why I choose not debate theists any more.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Kwon_2 on October 16, 2011, 02:10:07 PM
Dawkins is a superior being compared to O'Reilly, he shouldn't even honor O'Reilly with his presence nor time of day.

Milton + Chainsaw VS O'Reilly and Hannity.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 02:12:57 PM
richard dawkins is still alive?!

good for him...I loved him on "The Family Fued" and "Hogan's Heroes"


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 02:12:57 PM
Dawkins is a superior being compared to O'Reilly, he shouldn't even honor O'Reilly with his presence nor time of day.

Milton + Chainsaw VS O'Reilly and Hannity.

I would slit both of their throats on live television the moment they interrupted me....I don't like being interrupted and they interrupt...ALOT.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 02:19:06 PM
richard dawkins is still alive?!

good for him...I loved him on "The Family Fued" and "Hogan's Heroes"

Take your place upon my nutsack johnny. Lie there yearning for me to bestow my mighty blue steel upon the crevices of thine buttocks.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: MikMaq on October 16, 2011, 02:19:31 PM
  After several debates on FOX where Dawkins was very polite, courteous and logical and O'Reilly yelled and cursed at him every time, Dawkins finally got fed up and called O'Reilly unintelligent and said that the only way to have a productive debate with theists is to put on the other side theists who base their arguments for God on evidence and logical arguments rather than emotion and appeal to morality. And make no mistake about this: Dawkins is far intellectually superior to O'Reilly. Not even in the same league. Besides being an Oxford professor who occupies the same chair that belonged to Charles Darwin, Dawkins was a brilliant youth who considered studying physics and was taking calculus at age 11.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0scyrMpin5M

SUCKMYMUSCLE
He's the world's most annoying troll, and coming from me that says alot.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 02:20:29 PM
Take your place upon my nutsack johnny. Lie there yearning for me to bestow my mighty blue steel upon the crevices of thine buttocks.















shut up, Latrell Lamar


 


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 02:22:44 PM















shut up, Latrell Lamar


 

You have the mind and the body of a bottom.
Just come out and get it over the only person that doesn't know youre gay is you...


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 02:24:39 PM


pw3nd



ps..you' are a black


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 02:29:00 PM
pw3nd



ps..you' are a black

Just come out and get it over the only person that doesn't know youre gay is you...
I know, and I love it...being black great these days. :D
Does your mother know your gay?  Yes or No... ;D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Nomad on October 16, 2011, 02:32:39 PM
(http://bladeordie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Tide-comes-in-tide-goes-out-You-cant-explain-that.jpg)

Did O'Reilly really say that?

There is a reason for the Moon and the Sun...


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 02:34:34 PM
Just come out and get it over the only person that doesn't know youre gay is you...
I know, and I love it...being black great these days. :D
Does your mother know your gay?  Yes or No... ;D



no she doesn't





Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Skeletor on October 16, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
Did O'Reilly really say that?

There is a reason for the Moon and the Sun...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 16, 2011, 02:36:40 PM
Hope this helps......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 02:37:17 PM


no she doesn't





lol


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: viking1 on October 16, 2011, 02:38:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5qU4qudJYk


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 02:40:27 PM
Both Einstein and Newton believed in god.

But those intellectual lightweights wouldn't last 3 posts in the GetBig forums. They'd be destroyed.


Oh, and Newton (along w/ Leibniz) invented calculus.

I'm sure getbiggers invent calculus everyday when adding up all their plates.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 02:41:39 PM
Did O'Reilly really say that?

There is a reason for the Moon and the Sun...

yes, he did say that.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 02:42:15 PM
Hope this helps......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA



haha Epic Fail, Coach. This video was altered and richard dawkins eventually did provide a response.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 02:44:36 PM
Both Einstein and Newton believed in god.

But those intellectual lightweights wouldn't last 3 posts in the GetBig forums. They'd be destroyed.


Oh, and Newton (along w/ Leibniz) invented calculus.

I'm sure getbiggers invent calculus everyday when adding up all their plates.

  Newton believed in God in a time when it was almost impossible not to. We are talking the 16th century, man. The amount of scientific evidence back then was so small that even a genius would have no choice but to believe is some supernatural explanation. As for Einstein, he never believed in God. This is a myth. He used God as a metaphor for reality or the Universe as an allegory, but he didn't believe in God literally.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 02:48:46 PM
  Newton believed in God in a time when it was almost impossible not to. We are talking the 16th century, man. The amount of scientific evidence back then was so small that even a genius would have no choice but to believe is some supernatural explanation. As for Einstein, he never believed in God. This is a myth. He used God as a metaphor for reality or the Universe as an allegory, but he didn't believe in God literally.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

If I recall correctly, both Einstein and Newton were deists. They believed in a god, but that's as far as it went. Newton thought god was like a watchmaker. He (god) made the universe and then lets it run (without interference).

I remember learning about this in college. It stuck in my head that both scientists believed the same thing. If the class was wrong, or if more info has come to light, then that's fine.

Cursory Google searches yield no definite answers. (They go either way...)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
Hope this helps......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA



  It is amazing how this Bein Stein idiot misconstrued everything that Dawkins said to make it seem like Dawkins was advocating intelligent design, when nothing could be further from the truth. Epic self-ownage by "Coach" who is just as dumb as Bein Stein.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 16, 2011, 02:52:05 PM
haha Epic Fail, Coach. This video was altered and richard dawkins eventually did provide a response.

LOL..was that proven by an athiest site?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: The True Adonis on October 16, 2011, 02:52:29 PM
Both Einstein and Newton believed in god.

But those intellectual lightweights wouldn't last 3 posts in the GetBig forums. They'd be destroyed.


Oh, and Newton (along w/ Leibniz) invented calculus.

I'm sure getbiggers invent calculus everyday when adding up all their plates.
Hope this helps dipshit jr. Don`t ever repeat this bullshit again, ok?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear
Scientist's reply to sell for up to £8,000, and stoke debate over his beliefs


  
The Guardian,    Monday 12 May 2008



(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/12/einstein460x276.jpg)
Albert Einstein, pictured in 1953. Photograph: Ruth Orkin/Hulton Archive/Getty Images


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.

A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.

One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.

Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.

His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.

"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.

In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.

His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 16, 2011, 02:52:47 PM
  It is amazing how this Bein Stein idiot misconstrued everything that Dawkins said to make it seem like Dawkins was advocating intelligent design, when nothing could be further from the truth. Epic self-ownage by "Coach" who is just as dumb as Bein Stein.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Ok..lol


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 02:52:53 PM
If I recall correctly, both Einstein and Newton were deists. They believed in a god, but that's as far as it went. Newton thought god was like a watchmaker. He (god) made the universe and then lets it run (without interference).

I remember learning about this in college. It stuck in my head that both scientists believed the same thing. If the class was wrong, or if more info has come to light, then that's fine.

Cursory Google searches yield no definite answers. (They go either way...)

Well, of course Newton believed in God. IF he didn't, he would have been burned at the stake. the church ruled back then. I am almost certain that you put Newton in the 21st century and he would be an atheist.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: haider on October 16, 2011, 02:53:07 PM
you're quite the stupid bitch yourself, stupid


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 16, 2011, 02:53:45 PM
Hope this helps dipshit jr. Don`t ever repeat this bullshit again, ok?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear
Scientist's reply to sell for up to £8,000, and stoke debate over his beliefs


  
The Guardian,    Monday 12 May 2008



(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/12/einstein460x276.jpg)
Albert Einstein, pictured in 1953. Photograph: Ruth Orkin/Hulton Archive/Getty Images


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.

A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.

One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.

Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.

His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.

"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.

In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.

His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

Another cut and paste TA? lol


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 02:55:08 PM
If I recall correctly, both Einstein and Newton were deists. They believed in a god, but that's as far as it went. Newton thought god was like a watchmaker. He (god) made the universe and then lets it run (without interference).

I remember learning about this in college. It stuck in my head that both scientists believed the same thing. If the class was wrong, or if more info has come to light, then that's fine.

Cursory Google searches yield no definite answers. (They go either way...)

  Einstein liked to say in his debates with Max Planck that "God doesen't throw the dice", talking about the implausibility of quantum mechanics. But this is no evidence that Einstein believed in God. He was using allegorical and metaphorical speach, talking about God as some prime principle that ordained reality as it is. "God" could just be used by Einstein as synonymous with "final explanation" which he didn't know which is.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 02:55:18 PM
Another cut and paste TA? lol

it doesnt matter if its cut and paste, it proves that einstein was NOT a theist. plain and simple.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: The_Leafy_Bug on October 16, 2011, 02:57:35 PM
Another cut and paste TA? lol
Why do you make fun of cut and paste? I don't understand. Maybe you aren't used to citing sources or showing evidence for claims and that is why this is a totally new and strange concept to you?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: The True Adonis on October 16, 2011, 03:02:56 PM
Why do you make fun of cut and paste? I don't understand. Maybe you aren't used to citing sources or showing evidence for claims and that is why this is a totally new and strange concept to you?
Its a common theme with people of his ilk (largely Republicans) who cannot discern where a fact comes from or what a Primary source is, so they instead then institute a system where somehow opinions of unqualified individuals (or even their own opinions) take precedence over everything which are made up of myths, fables, exaggerations or even outright lies.  Truth, fact and Evidence be damned.

These people are also the easiest to manipulate.  :D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: haider on October 16, 2011, 03:04:46 PM
I would LOVE to beat the shit out of ben stein. What an insanely, despicably, cunting retard of a human being. Fuck him.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 03:05:13 PM
Coach is def. plugged in.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 03:05:35 PM
Its a common theme with people of his ilk (largely Republicans) who cannot discern where a fact comes from or what a Primary source is, so they instead then institute a system where somehow opinions of unqualified individuals (or even their own opinions) take precedence over everything which are made up of myths, fables, exaggerations or even outright lies.  Truth, fact and Evidence be damned.

These people are also the easiest to manipulate.  :D

so youre saying that citing peer reviewed journal articles is a good thing?  :D :D and that coach doesnt know this!  :o :o :o


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: The True Adonis on October 16, 2011, 03:07:16 PM
so youre saying that citing peer reviewed journal articles is a good thing?  :D :D and that coach doesnt know this!  :o :o :o
Nobody around here cites anything and that is part of the problem.  They would rather interject themselves somehow into a debate when they lack evidence to back anything up they are putting forth. 


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 03:09:02 PM
Nobody around here cites anything and that is part of the problem.  They would rather interject themselves somehow into a debate when they lack evidence to back anything up they are putting forth. 

Agreed. However, it appears that coach is against citing evidence  :-\ :-\


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 03:10:23 PM
Well, of course Newton believed in God. IF he didn't, he would have been burned at the stake. the church ruled back then. I am almost certain that you put Newton in the 21st century and he would be an atheist.

Who knows what Newton would believe if he were alive today? Ironically, I bet he'd be an Android guy.  ;)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
........and it begins


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 03:15:25 PM
richard dawkins is still alive?!

good for him...I loved him on "The Family Fued" and "Hogan's Heroes"

Don't forget Running Man


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 03:18:04 PM
Don't forget Running Man

this is a good movie


so remember motherfuckers- if it wasn't for Jesus, THERE WOULD BE NO HOGAN'S HEROES OR RUNNINGMAN


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 03:39:08 PM
this is a good movie


so remember motherfuckers- if it wasn't for Jesus, THERE WOULD BE NO HOGAN'S HEROES OR RUNNINGMAN

You fucking crack me up, man...as do these threads full of internet intellectuals who continually resort to ad hominem attacks and cut and paste jobs of their hero Dawkins (or conversely Ben Stein) because they very likely have little to no formal training in science (let alone evolutionary biology) and couldn't even begin to provide a rational defense of their beliefs.



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 03:42:56 PM
fact of the matter is this-

most Atheists make a cause out of the idea that something doesn't exist....

...Think about that- they started a group because they believe that something isn't there


I don't believe that Barney the Dinosaur is actual Dinosaur......hmmmm maybe I should start a cause about it and write several books about how Barney the Dinosaur isn't a real dinosaur



Honestly, most Atheists are just bitter about how "Jesus" took the life of their Goldfish when they were 6


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: JBGRAY on October 16, 2011, 03:44:30 PM
If Mr. Dawkins were so smart, then he should realize that he shouldn't engage in a debate on an entertainment show.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 03:45:11 PM
Now, onto the "jesus freaks"

seriously, do you really think that this omnipotent force really gives a shit about whether or not that you fuck another dude or a black chick or you cousin that one time at your grandma's house


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Wiggs on October 16, 2011, 03:46:50 PM
Now, onto the "jesus freaks"

seriously, do you really think that this omnipotent force really gives a shit about whether or not that you fuck another dude or a black chick or you cousin that one time at your grandma's house

Let it out johnny, let it all out.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 03:48:29 PM
fact of the matter is this-

most Atheists make a cause out of the idea that something doesn't exist....

...Think about that- they started a group because they believe that something isn't there


I don't believe that Barney the Dinosaur is actual Dinosaur......hmmmm maybe I should start a cause about it and write several books about how Barney the Dinosaur isn't a real dinosaur



Honestly, most Atheists are just bitter about how "Jesus" took the life of their Goldfish when they were 6

WRONG!! It has to do more with people instilling their religious beliefs into modern society. Like, texas wanting to rewrite science books and put in creationism, which is not science. Or people being against stem cell research because of their religious beliefs, which holds back scientific progress. Id have no problem with theists, IF they didnt try to push their beliefs into every facet of society. Its when religion retards scientific progress or any other progress that I have a problem with.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: MAXX on October 16, 2011, 03:48:57 PM
Did O'Reilly really say that?

There is a reason for the Moon and the Sun...
it's the religious "logic".

what they don't know/understand/comprehend, it's 'god created it' lol....


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: che on October 16, 2011, 03:49:26 PM
Now, onto the "jesus freaks"

seriously, do you really think that this omnipotent force really gives a shit about whether or not that you fuck another dude or a black chick or you cousin that one time at your grandma's house

What do you believe,JNN ?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
I like how everyone thinks they're right and they are so smug and emotionally invested in proving the superiority of their point of view.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 03:51:50 PM
it's the religious "logic".

what they don't know/understand/comprehend, it's 'god created it' lol....

Its called "God of the Gaps"


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 03:52:43 PM
WRONG!! It has to do more with people instilling their religious beliefs into modern society. Like, texas wanting to rewrite science books and put in creationism, which is not science. Or people being against stem cell research because of their religious beliefs, which holds back scientific progress. Id have no problem with theists, IF they didnt try to push their beliefs into every facet of society. Its when religion retards scientific progress or any other progress that I have a problem with.

see....most people tend to confuse religous freaks with people with spirtuality

religous freaks try to put the fear of "God" into you and tell you that this is bad and God will Spite you for that........These people are idiots

Now, people who are spiritual accept that their is something bigger than all of us but don't listen to all that psychobabble that racists who wear funny robes tell us.

Like, I believe that their is a God but I know that this God doesn't care if I masturbate four times a day or if I lie to my parents or if we use stem cell research


ps most atheists are pompous assholes

What do you believe,JNN ?

again, in my eyes there is something bigger than all of us

but that thing DOES NOT care what I do with my life


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
WRONG!! It has to do more with people instilling their religious beliefs into modern society. Like, texas wanting to rewrite science books and put in creationism, which is not science. Or people being against stem cell research because of their religious beliefs, which holds back scientific progress. Id have no problem with theists, IF they didnt try to push their beliefs into every facet of society. Its when religion retards scientific progress or any other progress that I have a problem with.

Well said and I touched on many points you already made , it's when they keep pushing their Bronze age myths on the rest of us when I have the problem , separation of church and state

Believe your fairy tales all you'd like put stop trying to impede progress


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 03:55:33 PM
see....most people tend to confuse religous freaks with people with spirtuality

religous freaks try to put the fear of "God" into you and tell you that this is bad and God will Spite you for that........These people are idiots

Now, people who are spiritual accept that their is something bigger than all of us but don't listen to all that psychobabble that racists who wear funny robes tell us.

Like, I believe that their is a God but I know that this God doesn't care if I masturbate four times a day or if I lie to my parents or if we use stem cell research


ps most atheists are pompous assholes

Your are right and wrong. Spirituality is the umbrella, in which many there are a multitude of ways to be spiritual. Some of these are are religion, yoga, meditation, etc. No, not all people who are spiritual accept that there is something bigger than all of us. Where are you getting this from? You can be spiritual without believing and worshiping a higher power or something bigger than yourself. Simple meditation and mindfulness is being spiritual, without a belief in anything higher persay.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 03:56:52 PM
seriously though....Atheism is a cause based on the idea that something doesn't exist


again, i'm not against anyone being a Atheist.......I just don't get all the effort and hardwork that goes into telling someone that you don't believe in something

I mean, the dawkins guy has written several books and has done several speaking engagements where he has spoken several words.....why waste all this time and paper when you can just say "HEY ASSHOLE- GOD ISN'T REAL"


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 03:57:39 PM
seriously though....Atheism is a cause based on the idea that something doesn't exist


again, i'm not against anyone being a Atheist.......I just don't get all the effort and hardwork that goes into telling someone that you don't believe in something

As stated above, the Atheist movement is more of a response to theists trying to instill their beliefs into modern society.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 03:58:35 PM
Well said and I touched on many points you already made , it's when they keep pushing their Bronze age myths on the rest of us when I have the problem , separation of church and state

Believe your fairy tales all you'd like put stop trying to impede progress

Exactly. Unfortunately, it appears that EVERYTHING goes against the bible, hence theists constant barrage of attacks against scientific progress in some areas.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 03:59:36 PM
WRONG!! It has to do more with people instilling their religious beliefs into modern society. Like, texas wanting to rewrite science books and put in creationism, which is not science. Or people being against stem cell research because of their religious beliefs, which holds back scientific progress. Id have no problem with theists, IF they didnt try to push their beliefs into every facet of society. Its when religion retards scientific progress or any other progress that I have a problem with.

So explain to me: why is evolution "science" but creationism not? Seems to me that they share the common approach of making observations about nature and attempting to provide explanations about how certain observable phenomena came about. Just because one posits a deity in the mix does not mean it can't be right. (Of course, most proponents of evolution claim that a "naturalistic" explanation is required, thus eliminating creationism as an explanation on definition alone...not because it can't provide a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.)  


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 04:01:02 PM
So explain to me: why is evolution "science" but creationism not? Seems to me that they share the common approach of making observations about nature and attempting to provide explanations about how certain observable phenomena came about. Just because one posits a deity in the mix does not mean it can't be right. (Of course, most proponents of evolution claim that a "naturalistic" explanation is required, thus eliminating creationism as an explanation on definition alone...not because it can't provide a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.)  

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_53X1LEXXPA4/RfnpNATaVBI/AAAAAAAAASA/CCXqv0nAPvc/s400/Science,%2Breligion.gif)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:02:37 PM
seriously though....Atheism is a cause based on the idea that something doesn't exist


again, i'm not against anyone being a Atheist.......I just don't get all the effort and hardwork that goes into telling someone that you don't believe in something

It's like Christopher Hitchens says he's more of an ' anti-theist ' than an atheist , Atheism is just the lack of belief in God(s) the more proactive and aggressive stance is the antitheism because people are just sick and tired of believers pushing their beliefs on the rest of society

a lot of believers are just like vegetarians , they just can't be happy with their position it must now be forced on everyone else. And we live in a great time , because we don't have to fear reprisals from believers any longer , back then they would burn a mother fucker or stone them for even denying the existence of God , now and days we can publicly mock their beliefs.

 


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 04:02:54 PM
I agree,  Atheist are just as annoying as Christians,Muslims,....................etc.
                                                                                                                    PS: I don't believe in nothing.
                  

Perhaps, but the big push of atheism is really only in response to theists trying to push their beliefs into every facet of society. To a certain extent, you should be thankful that atheists ward off the theists from instilling their beliefs into society (anti abortion and anti gay marriage)--if not, you might be forced to go to church and believe in god, otherwise they will burn you at the stake for being  a witch  :D :D  I mean, where does it end? Take away abortion and gay marriage rights. Whats next? Would you really want to live under a theocracy?  :-\


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 04:04:09 PM
Exactly. Unfortunately, it appears that EVERYTHING goes against the bible, hence theists constant barrage of attacks against scientific progress in some areas.

Creationism is not necessarily inherently religious. Deists are creationists too. Although most prominent creationists are Christians, creationism can be separated from religion.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: JBGRAY on October 16, 2011, 04:04:33 PM
Pascal's Wager......that's all I can say  ;)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 04:04:52 PM
Religion:
At first there was nothing. Bang! God created it!

Science:
At first there was nothing. Bang! Shit just happened.



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 04:05:09 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_53X1LEXXPA4/RfnpNATaVBI/AAAAAAAAASA/CCXqv0nAPvc/s400/Science,%2Breligion.gif)

LOL. Another cut and paste.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 04:06:19 PM
LOL. Another cut and paste.

it just explains very simply what I want to say, without wasting my time to write it out. does not matter if its a copy and paste. It explains my point and is a justified diagram.

I like how you write "copy and paste" and ignore the facts of the diagram  :-\ :-\


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: che on October 16, 2011, 04:08:35 PM
Perhaps, but the big push of atheism is really only in response to theists trying to push their beliefs into every facet of society. To a certain extent, you should be thankful that atheists ward off the theists from instilling their beliefs into society (anti abortion and anti gay marriage)--if not, you might be forced to go to church and believe in god, otherwise they will burn you at the stake for being  a witch  :D :D  I mean, where does it end? Take away abortion and gay marriage rights. Whats next? Would you really want to live under a theocracy?  :-\
Nah , They all have their own agenda.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 04:10:29 PM
Nah , They all have their own agenda.

Hmmm, perhaps, but it appears the atheist agenda is merely to ward off the theists attempt to instill their beliefs into society. When was the last time an atheist went door to door to try and convert someone to atheist? When was the last time a theist tried to do that? Quite often. It seems like the theists have a much bigger agenda on their hands.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 04:13:54 PM
Hmmm, perhaps, but it appears the atheist agenda is merely to ward off the theists attempt to instill their beliefs into society. When was the last time an atheist went door to door to try and convert someone to atheist? When was the last time a theist tried to do that? Quite often. It seems like the theists have a much bigger agenda on their hands.

Because atheists, as a general rule, just aren't vocal. Hell, a quick perusal of this thread bears this out...  ::)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:15:28 PM
Religion:
At first there was nothing. Bang! God created it!

Science:
At first there was nothing. Bang! Shit just happened.



There existed a singularity before the big bang and after inflation the singularity expanded , in science there always was something technically

With religion , God spoke everything into existence  :-\


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: che on October 16, 2011, 04:17:37 PM
Hmmm, perhaps, but it appears the atheist agenda is merely to ward off the theists attempt to instill their beliefs into society. When was the last time an atheist went door to door to try and convert someone to atheist? When was the last time a theist tried to do that? Quite often. It seems like the theists have a much bigger agenda on their hands.
Just wait , wait  until they get bigger ,raise more money  and organize better  , Do you see a pattern here?


(http://www.dailyencouragement.net/images/misc/bus_with_atheist_sign.jpg)
(http://images.christianpost.com/middle/47403/this-controversial-billboard-was-created-by-mcelroy-road-church-of-christ-in-mansfield-ohio-to-get-people-to.jpg)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:18:39 PM
Nah , They all have their own agenda.

The only agenda atheists have is to keep believers from interfering with the rest of our lives , separation of church and state , keep your mandatory prayer out of publicly funded schools ( private prayer is allowed , no one can stop that even in school ) abortion , stem cell research , creationism in schools , gay marriage , etc , etc , etc 


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: che on October 16, 2011, 04:20:31 PM
The only agenda atheists have is to keep believers from interfering with the rest of our lives , separation of church and state , keep your mandatory prayer out of publicly funded schools ( private prayer is allowed , no one can stop that even in school ) abortion , stem cell research , creationism in schools , gay marriage , etc , etc , etc 

Keep believing that ,ND .


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 04:20:37 PM
So explain to me: why is evolution "science" but creationism not? Seems to me that they share the common approach of making observations about nature and attempting to provide explanations about how certain observable phenomena came about. Just because one posits a deity in the mix does not mean it can't be right. (Of course, most proponents of evolution claim that a "naturalistic" explanation is required, thus eliminating creationism as an explanation on definition alone...not because it can't provide a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.)  

  The difference is that the observations made by scientists are based on evidence and logical deductions that must be consistent. A single contradiction inside a theory leads to it being proven wrong. The religious observations are based on wishful thinking and is logically implausible. Science postulates that the Universe was created in a big bang because the Universe has been observed to be expanding in all directions, and if so then it came from a focal point. This is logically deducing. Postulating that a giant man with a white beard created it has no evidence to support it and does not hold up to the logical consistency because, even if there were evidence that the Universe was created by a giant man with a white beard, something must have created the giant man with the white beard which leaves us back at square one without having solved anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 16, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
see, I can get behind the idea of "anti-theism" .

Religion has NOTHING to do with "God"
However, Religion will use "God" as there "Enforcer".  As in, "do this or our God will reign terror on you"

Fact of the matter, God (in whatever form he/she/it takes) is very laissez faire in a everyday person's life


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 04:23:54 PM
Just wait , wait  until they get bigger ,raise more money  and organize better  , Do you see a pattern here?


(http://www.dailyencouragement.net/images/misc/bus_with_atheist_sign.jpg)
(http://images.christianpost.com/middle/47403/this-controversial-billboard-was-created-by-mcelroy-road-church-of-christ-in-mansfield-ohio-to-get-people-to.jpg)

so a few signs compared to the millions of way theists have tried to imbue theism into our every day lives! Not even close man.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 04:24:15 PM
it just explains very simply what I want to say, without wasting my time to write it out. does not matter if its a copy and paste. It explains my point and is a justified diagram.

I like how you write "copy and paste" and ignore the facts of the diagram  :-\ :-\

Your diagram is a joke. Creationism approaches the origins of life in the exact same manner as evolution. Namely, it looks at observable phenomena in nature and attempts to explain how they came about. It does this in the exact same way that evolution does. The key in both cases is that you are largely looking at things that ALREADY HAPPENED. You keep saying that creationism isn't "testable." That is correct in some sense, but it in no way invalidates creationism because creationism really deals with what evolutionists call "macroevolution" which we really can't test in real time in the first place. All the so-called "experiments" that evolutionists carry out (and that you seem to demand) are basically studies on "microevolution," a principle that no creation scientist would question in the first place. They would simply call that adaptation...or a change in the frequency of alleles that ALREADY EXIST in the gene pool.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 04:24:40 PM
There existed a singularity before the big bang and after inflation the singularity expanded , in science there always was something technically

With religion , God spoke everything into existence  :-\

I see....and why did it inflate?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: che on October 16, 2011, 04:29:27 PM
so a few signs compared to the millions of way theists have tried to imbue theism into our every day lives! Not even close man.
Just wait ,it's just the beginning some smart atheists  are going to make money with the  atheist sheep.

(http://www.thegospelnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/atheist-billboard-one.jpg)

(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/billboardup_flash%282%29.jpg)

(http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/scavenger/2010/02/17/billboard_sacramento_vandalized-hires500x314.jpg)

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/299699/thumbs/r-ATHEIST-BILLBOARD-large570.jpg)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:36:55 PM
Your diagram is a joke. Creationism approaches the origins of life in the exact same manner as evolution. Namely, it looks at observable phenomena in nature and attempts to explain how they came about. It does this in the exact same way that evolution does. The key in both cases is that you are largely looking at things that ALREADY HAPPENED. You keep saying that creationism isn't "testable." That is correct in some sense, but it in no way invalidates creationism because creationism really deals with what evolutionists call "macroevolution" which we really can't test in real time in the first place. All the so-called "experiments" that evolutionists carry out (and that you seem to demand) are basically studies on "microevolution," a principle that no creation scientist would question in the first place. They would simply call that adaptation...or a change in the frequency of alleles that ALREADY EXIST in the gene pool.

marco is the result of many mircos and it's been observed

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/

creationisms proof ultimately leads back to an ' intelligent designer ' and that's where it fails and will always fail ( among other places )


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 04:39:32 PM
I know, I totally agree that science cant prove everything. The problem is that people will forgo science because they insert God as the answer and leave well enough alone. This holds back scientific progression when you have theists inserting God as the answer into everything.

  This is not even the issue. Science doesen't need to be able to prove everything for we to reject logically implausible hypothesis. But science can prove most observational phenomena. What science cannot prove are things that belong to the realm of abstraction. For instance, mathematics can define the laws that govern physical reality quite accurately, but what explains mathematics at the conceptual level and why it can explain reality? What is the concept of a quantity(the number 1) intrinsically? What is the number zero(nothingness) intrinsically? We can define matter as all property that has mass and identify it's components as particles, but what is mass in itself? What is anything in itself - what Kant called the thing in itself? We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction. Time can only exist where there is mass(something) and it cannot exist without it. How can time pass where there is nothing? So for us to answer these questions we need to know how concepts relate to our physical reality. It is more something that belongs to philosophy rather than physics...

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on October 16, 2011, 04:39:51 PM
Evil faith can wreck a feeble human mind. It's sick.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:40:13 PM
I see....and why did it inflate?

Who knows? if you say God you're offering up a hypothesis now comes the time to prove it which can't be done , science doesn't have any explanation on what caused inflation or what happened before it , which is why they haven't really touched the subject 


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 04:41:00 PM
So explain to me: why is evolution "science" but creationism not? Seems to me that they share the common approach of making observations about nature and attempting to provide explanations about how certain observable phenomena came about. Just because one posits a deity in the mix does not mean it can't be right. (Of course, most proponents of evolution claim that a "naturalistic" explanation is required, thus eliminating creationism as an explanation on definition alone...not because it can't provide a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.)  

The simple answer is this: Creationism claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by a supernatural creator. But, if that is the case, Creationism is outside the realm of science, since science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Therefore, creationism, by definition, isn't a scientific theory.

The same argument holds for the "more scientific" variant of Creationism, called "Intelligent Design":

Intelligent Design claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by something it terms a designing intelligence. OK... so, let's contemplate that for a bit.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by our original premise, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. We're left with an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Well, maybe we could posit a supernatural creating intelligence. But, if we take that option we instantly take Intelligent Design outside the realm of science, and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories. So, that's no good.

The other option, is to accept that the designing intelligence can arise solely out of natural processes, which clearly contradicts the original premise of Intelligent Design, so that's out the door too.

Dang it. No matter what we do,  Intelligent Design ends up being either self-contradictory or non-scientific. It's out too.

I hope this helps.  :)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 16, 2011, 04:41:45 PM
 This is not even the issue. Science doesen't need to be able to prove everything for we to reject logically implausible hypothesis. But science can prove most observational phenomena. What science cannot prove are things that belong to the realm of abstraction. For instance, mathematics can define the laws that govern physical reality quite accurately, but what explains mathematics at the conceptual level and why it can explain reality? What is the concept of a quantity(the number 1) intrinsically? What is the number zero(nothingness) intrinsically? We can define matter as all property that has mass and identify it's components as particles, but what is mass in itself? What is anything in itself - what Kant called the thing in itself? We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction. Time can only exist where there is mass(something) and it cannot exist without it. How can time pass where there is nothing? So for us to answer these questions we need to know how concepts relate to our physical reality. It is more something that belongs to philosophy rather than physics...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  Shit this truly outstanding post..,,you my sir shouldnt be posting on Getibig.......


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 04:42:21 PM
Who knows? if you say God you're offering up a hypothesis now comes the time to prove it which can't be done , science doesn't have any explanation on what caused inflation or what happened before it , which is why they haven't really touched the subject 

I'm not saying anything either way. Like you say "Who knows".

BUT .. it sounds like you know that God is definitely out. Is that true?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 04:44:35 PM
 This is not even the issue. Science doesen't need to be able to prove everything for we to reject logically implausible hypothesis. But science can prove most observational phenomena. What science cannot prove are things that belong to the realm of abstraction. For instance, mathematics can define the laws that govern physical reality quite accurately, but what explains mathematics at the conceptual level and why it can explain reality? What is the concept of a quantity(the number 1) intrinsically? What is the number zero(nothingness) intrinsically? We can define matter as all property that has mass and identify it's components as particles, but what is mass in itself? What is anything in itself - what Kant called the thing in itself? We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction. Time can only exist where there is mass(something) and it cannot exist without it. How can time pass where there is nothing? So for us to answer these questions we need to know how concepts relate to our physical reality. It is more something that belongs to philosophy rather than physics...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

(http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233495358_appl3456.gif)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:44:52 PM
 The difference is that the observations made by scientists are based on evidence and logical deductions that must be consistent. A single contradiction inside a theory leads to it being proven wrong. The religious observations are based on wishful thinking and is logically implausible. Science postulates that the Universe was created in a big bang because the Universe has been observed to be expanding in all directions, and if so then it came from a focal point. This is logically deducing. Postulating that a giant man with a white beard created it has no evidence to support it and does not hold up to the logical consistency because, even if there were evidence that the Universe was created by a giant man with a white beard, something must have created the giant man with the white beard which leaves us back at square one without having solved anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Great point and there is all sorts of converging evidence for the ' big bang ' which has stood the test of time , there is proof of this position and it stands the test of peer review which is brutal , if you don't have your shit together and facts check you will be destroyed along with your theory and scientific credibility.

Who needs proof in religion? all you need is ' faith '  :-X


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Skeletor on October 16, 2011, 04:45:42 PM
The simple answer is this: Creationism claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by a supernatural creator. But, if that is the case, Creationism is outside the realm of science, since science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Therefore, creationism, by definition, isn't a scientific theory.

The same argument holds for the "more scientific" variant of Creationism, called "Intelligent Design":

Intelligent Design claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by something it terms a designing intelligence. OK... so, let's contemplate that for a bit.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by our original premise, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. We're left with an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Well, maybe we could posit a supernatural creating intelligence. But, if we take that option we instantly take Intelligent Design outside the realm of science, and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories. So, that's no good.

The other option, is to accept that the designing intelligence can arise solely out of natural processes, which clearly contradicts the original premise of Intelligent Design, so that's out the door too.

Dang it. No matter what we do,  Intelligent Design ends up being either self-contradictory or non-scientific. It's out too.

I hope this helps.  :)

Solid post.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 04:45:55 PM
I'm not saying anything either way. Like you say "Who knows".

BUT .. it sounds like you know that God is definitely out. Is that true?

Not even Dawkins says God is DEFINITELY out. Dawkins has been saying that he can't prove for a 100% fact that God doesnt exist, but he is certain with, say, a 99.9% chance that a God doesn't exist. For Dawkins, and for most atheists, those are pretty good odds. But no one can know for certain and that isnt really a valid argument.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: OneMoreRep on October 16, 2011, 04:46:41 PM
It doesn't take a genius like Dawkins to own the shit out of O'Reilly.  There have been talented high school students who have had but mere 3 minute interviews with him on his show who have actually owned him into oblivion via facts and by using O'Reilly's book to show incongruency with his present-day statements.

If you ever want to see O'Reilly struggling to find logic while pretending to argue, look up any clips of him debating matters of faith with Bill Maher.

"1"


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: asbrus on October 16, 2011, 04:46:59 PM
  It is amazing how this Bein Stein idiot misconstrued everything that Dawkins said to make it seem like Dawkins was advocating intelligent design, when nothing could be further from the truth. Epic self-ownage by "Coach" who is just as dumb as Bein Stein.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

L0L BEN STEIN IS THE BIGGEST FUCKING M0R0N 0N T.V. THERE IS. THIS IS THEY GUY THAT SAID THE BANKS ARE D0ING GREAT A WEEK BEF0RE THE C0LLAPSE. IN THIS INTERVIEW N0 WHERE D0ES DAWKINS SAY HE BELIEVES IN A CREAT0R. HE SAYS IT'S P0SSIBLE THAT AN0THER CIVILIZATI0N CREATED US BUT IT D0SEN'T MEAN THAT CIVILIZATI0N CREATED EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE. FUCK BEN STEIN IS AS DUMB AS THE PE0PLE IN THIS F0RUM.

BEN ALS0 C0NTRADICTS HIMSELF BY SAYING WELL WH0 CREATED US? WELL BEN THEN WH0 CREATED G0D?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:50:33 PM
I'm not saying anything either way. Like you say "Who knows".

BUT .. it sounds like you know that God is definitely out. Is that true?

To claim is God is definitely out is to claim to have knowledge of everything ( ironically religion unabashedly claims this ) but we do know and can prove there was a singularity and that it expanded , of someone says God was the reason , they leave the scientific method and enter theology which doesn't need to prove it's position just merely have faith it's true.

Any theological claims can't be applied to the scientific method , you say God caused the inflation , I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it , you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong , Hell Zeus may have caused the inflation for all we know , as long as anyone believes it , it them becomes possible with ' faith ' or belief


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 04:51:01 PM
Solid post.

Not sure how this is a solid post. Creation science is dismissed by a clever definition, not because it can't provide an explanation for observable events in nature. That's just an easy cop out that atheistic evolutionists use because they don't believe in God in the first place. It reminds me of the old Aquinas argument for the existence of God...namely, that God by definition is the greatest possible conceivable being. To be the greatest possible being, you must exist. Therefore, God exists. Huh?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 16, 2011, 04:53:54 PM
 This is not even the issue. Science doesen't need to be able to prove everything for we to reject logically implausible hypothesis. But science can prove most observational phenomena. What science cannot prove are things that belong to the realm of abstraction. For instance, mathematics can define the laws that govern physical reality quite accurately, but what explains mathematics at the conceptual level and why it can explain reality? What is the concept of a quantity(the number 1) intrinsically? What is the number zero(nothingness) intrinsically? We can define matter as all property that has mass and identify it's components as particles, but what is mass in itself? What is anything in itself - what Kant called the thing in itself? We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction. Time can only exist where there is mass(something) and it cannot exist without it. How can time pass where there is nothing? So for us to answer these questions we need to know how concepts relate to our physical reality. It is more something that belongs to philosophy rather than physics...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  This seriously d best post ive read on getbig period....the best in all the years i have been here......


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
Not sure how this is a solid post. Creation science is dismissed by a clever definition, not because it can't provide an explanation for observable events in nature. That's just an easy cop out that atheistic evolutionists use because they don't believe in God in the first place. It reminds me of the old Aquinas argument for the existence of God...namely, that God by definition is the greatest possible conceivable being. To be the greatest possible being, you must exist. Therefore, God exists. Huh?

Creationism and Intelligent design have had their day in court and failed , it's not science even though it claims to be , it's pseudoscience , it's junk and fails on so many levels.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 04:56:28 PM
  "The scientist's quest is a tragic one: to climb the highest peaks, until the highest of them all, only to find the religious mystic at the top of it."

  I read this quote from some famous scientist. I will try to discover from who it is.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Well, I would just push that religious Mystic Nut right off the Mountain just to prove gravity works.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 04:57:13 PM
Creationism and Intelligent design have had their day in court and failed , it's not science even though it claims to be , it's pseudoscience , it's junk and fails on so many levels.

Cool, now's your chance to show us how! I'll give ya' 30 minutes to write it up. No cut and paste ;). (and please no pictues of Dorian).


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Parker on October 16, 2011, 04:57:34 PM
What I'm saying is science, CAN prove everything.  We don't have an understanding of the science yet.  It's just waiting to be found or unearthed...You are correct.  It's no different then thousands of years ago when the unexplained would be attributed to a supernatural power...That hasn't stopped science from progressing IMO although I see more for profit vs. in the name of science today.
Thousands of hrs ago, things were still explained by science and Math, Algebra, Pythagorus (sp), etc.
Pyramids and Statues had to built somehow. They just had "The Gods" to explain morality, and things that are out of their control, "If the Gods will it."


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 04:57:34 PM
Well, I would just push that religious Mystic Nut right off the Mountain just to prove gravity works.

lmfao  ;D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 04:57:53 PM
We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. It's not really an issue of abstraction per se. First of all, it's not even sensible to speak in terms of "what happened before the Big Bang" since time, temporal ordering and causality are intrinsic properties of the Universe we live in, which came into existence with the Big Bang. The concept of "before" is meaningless when there is no time.

This points to the larger issue of talking about what happened "before" the Big Bang, even if we do come up with some "sensible" definition of before for the purposes of this discussion.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 04:58:02 PM
Well, I would just push that religious Mystic Nut right off the Mountain just to prove gravity works.

   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 04:59:29 PM
Creationism and Intelligent design have had their day in court and failed , it's not science even though it claims to be , it's pseudoscience , it's junk and fails on so many levels.
I agree, religion is childish nonsense for the simple minded, when will people think for themselves or even pick up a decent book. The concept of God is just a childish longing for Father.  Answer: S = 9, E = 5, N = 6, D = 7, M = 1, O = 0, R = 8, Y = 2

Grow Up God Botherers, Nobody Intelligent wants to hear your make believe Nonsense.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 05:01:16 PM
To claim is God is definitely out is to claim to have knowledge of everything ( ironically religion unabashedly claims this ) but we do know and can prove there was a singularity and that it expanded , of someone says God was the reason , they leave the scientific method and enter theology which doesn't need to prove it's position just merely have faith it's true.

Any theological claims can't be applied to the scientific method , you say God caused the inflation , I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it , you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong , Hell Zeus may have caused the inflation for all we know , as long as anyone believes it , it them becomes possible with ' faith ' or belief

god, batman, spaghetti monster, urkle, gumby...whatever..let's just call it "intelligent entity"

and, science can "prove" a singularity expanded? then why are they constantly revising the relatively trivial issue of "dark matter"? just a thought. and what's up w/ those faster than light particles? all bullshit?

bottom line: if a human could PROVE...PROVE god existed, or didn't then he/she would be the most famous person in all of history.

does that person exist among getbiggers? i would not be surprised!


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 05:02:58 PM
To claim is God is definitely out is to claim to have knowledge of everything

Nonsense. I know a square circle is definitely out, and I don't need knowledge of everything to claim it. The problem with the statement you attack is that the term "God" is nebulous and meaningless. For a given concrete definition of God, it is definitely possible to say "God, as defined here, is out" with absolute certainty. Just like it's possible to say that square circles don't exist with absolute certainty.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 05:06:52 PM
the construct of the universe is such that finding an answer to its origins is impossible. but it is fact that if such an answer does exist, that answer is god. it may very well be that there is no answer.. if the universe is an eternal entity, self sustaining, with no creator.. then asking about its origins is non-sensical. but, and this is an important point, if there is an answer, that answer is god. this is undebatable. it doesnt prove anything, but its fact.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 05:08:10 PM
Not sure how this is a solid post. Creation science is dismissed by a clever definition, not because it can't provide an explanation for observable events in nature. That's just an easy cop out that atheistic evolutionists use because they don't believe in God in the first place. It reminds me of the old Aquinas argument for the existence of God...namely, that God by definition is the greatest possible conceivable being. To be the greatest possible being, you must exist. Therefore, God exists. Huh?

That's not the same thing at all. The fact is that the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. If Creationism involves a supernatural creator -- as it does -- it's outside the realm of science. And if Intelligent design claims that an intelligent designer is a necessary prerequisite and that what we observe cannot simply have evolved, then, it's legitimate to ask how ID explains the existence of the intelligent designer himself. The answer ends up being that ID is either inconsistent or unscientific. It's simple logic. No "clever definitions" or cheap parlor tricks.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 16, 2011, 05:08:17 PM
Cool, now's your chance to show us how! I'll give ya' 30 minutes to write it up. No cut and paste ;). (and please no pictues of Dorian).

I already have  :-\ intelligent design leads back to a creator , which leaves the scientific method and becomes theology , science deals with the natural world not the unnatural or supernatural world

intelligent design proponents tried to use science to prove God was ultimately responsible and it failed the scientific method , you don't want no CCP  to prove my point? then I don't know what to tell you , I don't have to show you anything , you're making a claim to the contrary if you think you can prove science wrong then submit your thesis for peer review and claim your Nobel prize and collect your fame & riches

I don't entertain creationists , they had their shot and got beat down and then returned with intelligent design and took another beating , a laugh at creationists and their beliefs


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 16, 2011, 05:08:28 PM
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. It's not really an issue of abstraction per se. First of all, it's not even sensible to speak in terms of "what happened before the Big Bang" since time, temporal ordering and causality are intrinsic properties of the Universe we live in, which came into existence with the Big Bang. The concept of "before" is meaningless when there is no time.

This points to the larger issue of talking about what happened "before" the Big Bang, even if we do come up with some "sensible" definition of before for the purposes of this discussion.

  Yes, it is a problem of semantics, the nature of logic and what exactly is the relation between concepts and reality. Maybe the deeper we dig into the intrinsic properties of reality, the closer and closer it becomes to abstract concepts until at the end we find that the ultimate substrate of reality has no property besides being a pure concept(a thought). So reality is at least partially perceptual. But the reason why I brought up time is because many people assume that something must explain the first cause of the Universe. The folly in this reasoning is that if something must explain the first cause, then it is not the first cause because the first cause by definition has no cause. Time is a function of causality which is a function of matter(something). Time originates with the first cause and the first cause does not require time to exist because it does not require any cause(what creates time). This is an axiomatic and tautological truth...

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 05:10:23 PM
Nonsense. I know a square circle is definitely out, and I don't need knowledge of everything to claim it. The problem with the statement you attack is that the term "God" is nebulous and meaningless. For a given concrete definition of God, it is definitely possible to say "God, as defined here, is out" with absolute certainty. Just like it's possible to say that square circles don't exist with absolute certainty.

Here is a Square Circle  ;D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 05:12:42 PM
the construct of the universe is such that finding an answer to its origins is impossible. but it is fact that if such an answer does exist, that answer is god.

Not true. At the very least you need to provide a concrete definition of the term god. What are the properties of this 'god' that you claim is the answer (if the answer exists).

if the universe is an eternal entity, self sustaining, with no creator

It's meaningless to use terms such as 'eternal' when referring to the Universe. Time, as we define it, is a property of the Universe and doesn't exist outside of and separate from the Universe.

but, and this is an important point, if there is an answer, that answer is god. this is undebatable. it doesnt prove anything, but its fact.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. How it is undebatable that, if there is an answer, then 'god is the answer? What is 'god' in this context? What does the term mean?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 05:14:33 PM
Here is a Square Circle  ;D

I BELIEVE! OH GREAT CIRCLE-SQUARE! PLEASE BRING ME RICHES, 24" BICEPS AND STRIATED GLUTES! *BOWS*


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 05:16:11 PM
That's not the same thing at all. The fact is that the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. If Creationism involves a supernatural creator -- as it does -- it's outside the realm of science. And if Intelligent design claims that an intelligent designer is a necessary prerequisite and that what we observe cannot simply have evolved, then, it's legitimate to ask how ID explains the existence of the intelligent designer himself. The answer ends up being that ID is either inconsistent or unscientific. It's simple logic. No "clever definitions" or cheap parlor tricks.
if something is supernatural it doesnt have to be logical, jackass.  ;D




Not true. At the very least you need to provide a concrete definition of the term god. What are the properties of this 'god' that you claim is the answer (if the answer exists).

It's meaningless to use terms such as 'eternal' when referring to the Universe. Time, as we define it, is a property of the Universe and doesn't exist outside of and separate from the Universe.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. How it is undebatable that, if there is an answer, then 'god is the answer? What is 'god' in this context? What does the term mean?
god is, and this is pretty much universally accepted by all who believe, incomprehensible. trying to define god, outside of "the creator", is a fruitless endeavor.  god may or may not exist. but if god does exist, god is the supernatural creator of all things and you can  not understand his existence. by definition anytihng supernatural is going to be incomprehensible to those of us in the natural world.


how is it undebatable? well there are two options. either everything was created, or everything is eternal. so you have one scenario with a creator (god), and one scenario with no answer for existence.  there are no other options. i beg you, if you disagree, think of one.


your being extremely obtuse.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 05:19:38 PM
One this is for sure:

Given the mental caliber of GetBig posters, this pesky God shit will be solved once and for all and humanity will be grateful!


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: che on October 16, 2011, 05:20:46 PM
One this is for sure:

Given the mental caliber of GetBig posters, this pesky God shit will be solved once and for all and humanity will be grateful!


''Maybe God didnt always exist. I actually think that he created himself. which implies that there was a period of non-existence, and then god created himself... got lonely, and created existence.''

                                                                                            TBOMBZ


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 05:22:23 PM

''Maybe God didnt always exist. I actually think that he created himself. which implies that there was a period of non-existence, and then god created himself... got lonely, and created existence.''

                                                                                            TBOMBZ
Well if thats possible, maybe he fucked off again rooting some hookers in a far off Galaxy Smoking some A Grade Cannabis never to be heard off again. Just a thought. Thats what I'd do anyway given un-natural powers.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 05:22:27 PM
if something is supernatural it doesnt have to be logical, jackass.  ;D

It also isn't scientific  ;D


god is, and this is pretty much universally accepted by all who believe, incomprehensible. trying to define god, outside of "the creator", is a fruitless endeavor.  god may or may not exist. but if god does exist, god is the supernatural creator of all things and you can  not understand his existence. by definition anytihng supernatural is going to be incomprehensible to those of us in the natural world.

LOL... THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS! You start out by saying "god is incomprehensible" but you immediately proceed to provide at least two characteristics: he is supernatural and he is the creator of all things. You then repeat that he's incomprehensible. Great...

If he's incomprehensible, how do all those who believe come to know all this stuff about god? And how do they distinguish what's an attribute of their incomprehensible god and what isn't?


your being extremely obtuse.

Because I refuse to fall for the trap of debating against something undefined? If you think the definition is clear, then provide it. And no, "incomprehensible" won't cut it.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 05:24:17 PM
That's not the same thing at all. The fact is that the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. If Creationism involves a supernatural creator -- as it does -- it's outside the realm of science. And if Intelligent design claims that an intelligent designer is a necessary prerequisite and that what we observe cannot simply have evolved, then, it's legitimate to ask how ID explains the existence of the intelligent designer himself. The answer ends up being that ID is either inconsistent or unscientific. It's simple logic. No "clever definitions" or cheap parlor tricks.

Please define supernatural. Evolution demands eternal something...I find that just as implausible and "supernatural" as positing a deity. Just as you ask me where God came from, I could simply ask you: where did all this matter come from? I frankly think something coming from nothing (which is what you are suggesting) is just as supernatural as a deity. So again, let's get back to the science. Really disappointing that the only arguments levied against creation science are metaphysical. Ya'll sound like the very creation scientists you constantly disparage.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 05:27:02 PM
A humble and simple request:

To all those who deny God...

just PROVE it and go down in history as the most famous human to ever walk the planet. Prolly make billions too.

Not too much to ask. We have some strong contenders here on Getbig.

Just do that simple thing.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 05:27:42 PM
About the best an Intelligent person could say is that God could be an option. But thats it, to say he exists or doesnt cannot be known.
but deep deep deep deep down everyone knows THERE IS NO GoD
[/size]


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
It also isn't scientific  ;D


LOL... THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS! You start out by saying "god is incomprehensible" but you immediately proceed to provide at least two characteristics: he is supernatural and he is the creator of all things. You then repeat that he's incomprehensible. Great...

If he's incomprehensible, how do all those who believe come to know all this stuff about god? And how do they distinguish what's an attribute of their incomprehensible god and what isn't?


Because I refuse to fall for the trap of debating against something undefined? If you think the definition is clear, then provide it. And no, "incomprehensible" won't cut it.

you already admitted to understanding that god, if he exists, would be a supernatural entity. by definition that is the case. and by definition something SUPERNATURAL is incomprehensible.  when talking about "god" one doesnt need to clarify how they come to the idea that god is the creator, because the term god itself is a manifestation of the adjective 'creator" in its purest form.  "creator", "god", "supernatural". no proof for any of those things. but they are words nonetheless, and for a word to exist there must be some operative definition. the deifition for those terms are clear and concise. if you cant get past this very simple point your either extremely obtuse or allowing your self to inhibit the processing of new information that contradicts your old beliefs.  

there are only two options for the universe. caused, or uncaused. no others. in one scenario a creator, god, is required. in the other scenario there is no answer for the origins of existence, existence just is. so, either god is the answer, or there is no answer.  very, very simple.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 16, 2011, 05:30:26 PM
 Yes, it is a problem of semantics, the nature of logic and what exactly is the relation between concepts and reality. Maybe the deeper we dig into the intrinsic properties of reality, the closer and closer it becomes to abstract concepts until at the end we find that the ultimate substrate of reality has no property besides being a pure concept(a thought). So reality is at least partially perceptual. But the reason why I brought up time is because many people assume that something must explain the first cause of the Universe. The folly in this reasoning is that if something must explain the first cause, then it is not the first cause because the first cause by definition has no cause. Time is a function of causality which is a function of matter(something). Time originates with the first cause and the first cause does not require time to exist because it does not require any cause(what creates time). This is an axiomatic and tautological truths...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  another fantastic post....wow what are ya man??????? i just dont read stuff like this on internet forums..


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: che on October 16, 2011, 05:33:44 PM

there are only two options for the universe. caused, or uncaused. no others. in one scenario a creator, god, is required. in the other scenario there is no answer for the origins of existence, existence just is. so, either god is the answer, or there is no answer.  very, very simple.
Ask him ,you talk to him every night.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 05:34:16 PM
To be an Atheist requires a tremendous amount of faith, FAITH that this is the only life we get. So dont waste it on Make Believe. Forget God an go and get laid Get Biggers.  You know you want too. There is a hooker out there somewhere with a Crucifix Necklace and a tattoo of Jesus on her lowerback with a Getbiggers name on her.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 05:35:53 PM
Please define supernatural.

Everything that is outside the realm of the laws of nature.

Evolution demands eternal something...

No it doesn't. Where does it demand such a thing?

I find that just as implausible and "supernatural" as positing a deity. Just as you ask me where God came from, I could simply ask you: where did all this matter come from? I frankly think something coming from nothing (which is what you are suggesting) is just as supernatural as a deity. So again, let's get back to the science. Really disappointing that the only arguments levied against creation science are metaphysical. Ya'll sound like the very creation scientists you constantly disparage.

Putting words in my mouth won't help you win any arguments.  I never said "something came from nothing" and that's a very common misconception of people who don't have a background in science, and at least a rudimentary understanding of advanced and theoretical physics.

My answer to your question about 'where all this matter comes from' would be exceedingly long to type here, but feel free to visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory) for a decent (and pretty accessible) explanation of how science understands the formation of the Universe. The theory is certainly not complete and there are questions it cannot answer (such as the baryonic asymmetry we observe) but that's how science is.

As to what came "before" the Big Bang, I will again point out that the question is meaningless, because it assumes temporal causality divorced from time.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 05:38:01 PM
^^^^    avxo  = "existence doesnt demand eternity"... "something didnt come from nothing"..     ;D   ;D   you dont see how these two ideas are contradictory by their very definitions ?  ;D  ;D     

atheists are the smartest bunch of idiots on the planet  ;D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 05:40:34 PM
You know you want to believe it, just try it.  Atheism is great, it frees you from morbid guilt, delusional thinking and enhances your sex life by 1000 %.  Come to the Dark Side my God Botherers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjrmUDj_lbk


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 05:43:54 PM
atheists are the smartest bunch of idiots on the planet  ;D
God Botherers are just idiots who are holding up the progress of the planet.  The problem is the Church is so full Of Sexual Repression that these Freaks are Rooting like rabbits out of guilt and shame.  Atheists need to lessen the guilt and shame of God Botherers first to slow down their rampant closet sex addictions that lead to their mass breeding cycles. Maybe then we can talk sense to them.  I am sure there is an atheist pharmacist somewhere working on an anti God pill, as God only lives in the mind of the delusional who dont like to face reality.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: apply85 on October 16, 2011, 05:45:46 PM
by their own definitions things that are supernatural do not exist


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 05:46:27 PM
you already admitted to understanding that god, if he exists, would be a supernatural entity. by definition that is the case. and by definition something SUPERNATURAL is incomprehensible.  when talking about "god" one doesnt need to clarify how they come to the idea that god is the creator, because the term god itself is a manifestation of the adjective 'creator" in its purest form.  "creator", "god", "supernatural". no proof for any of those things. but they are words nonetheless, and for a word to exist there must be some operative definition. the deifition for those terms are clear and concise. if you cant get past this very simple point your either extremely obtuse or allowing your self to inhibit the processing of new information that contradicts your old beliefs.  

there are only two options for the universe. caused, or uncaused. no others. in one scenario a creator, god, is required. in the other scenario there is no answer for the origins of existence, existence just is. so, either god is the answer, or there is no answer.  very, very simple.

You say that for a word to exist there must be some operative definition. What's the operative definition of "najuglabublabuabumaguhat sukasa"? It's a word. I just typed it. Tnere it is, on your screen in bold black letters. It exists. What's the operative definition? You claim that a word that exists must have an operative definition. So provide it.

As to the other nonsense about 'god' being interchangeable with 'creator': you keep making assertions about this supernatural entity that you claim may exist and that you concede is incomprehensible. How did you come to know that 'god' is a creator? Is it your contention that if 'god' exists, then he must have necessarily created the universe? How do you know that?

You assert that there are only two options for the Universe. Caused and uncaused. What leads you to that conclusion? Causality is a property of our Universe. What makes you think that causal relationships exists separate from the Universe?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 05:57:33 PM
^^^^    avxo  = "existence doesnt demand eternity"... "something didnt come from nothing"..     ;D   ;D   you dont see how these two ideas are contradictory by their very definitions ?  ;D  ;D     

atheists are the smartest bunch of idiots on the planet  ;D

I see nothing contradictory in the statement "existence doesn't demand eternity." Existence, as we understand it, is something finite. We are born then we die. We exist for a finite period of time. The Universe, on the other hand, can't be said to "exist" in the same sense because time is a property of the Universe. In that sense the Universe is eternal. But that doesn't necessarily preclude a beginning or an end vis-a-vis the Big Bang.

And as for "something didn't come from nothing" that really depends on what you mean. Quantum vacuum fluctuations, for example, can cause virtual particles to come into existence: TADA! Something from nothing.

The problem that you have with that statement though is much simpler: you hear people say "nothing was before the Big Bang" and you get confused. You look in front of you, and you see a computer screen. You look to your left and you see a plate of Totino's pizza pockets. And you wonder "well shit. There's stuff right here!" The answer is that you misunderstand what is meant because you don't have a background in theoretical physics. Read up on the Big Bang article at wikipedia. Eat your pizza pockets while doing it. You'll probably get a little better understanding.



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 06:00:31 PM
You say that for a word to exist there must be some operative definition. What's the operative definition of "najuglabublabuabumaguhat sukasa"? It's a word. I just typed it. Tnere it is, on your screen in bold black letters. It exists. What's the operative definition? You claim that a word that exists must have an operative definition. So provide it.

As to the other nonsense about 'god' being interchangeable with 'creator': you keep making assertions about this supernatural entity that you claim may exist and that you concede is incomprehensible. How did you come to know that 'god' is a creator? Is it your contention that if 'god' exists, then he must have necessarily created the universe? How do you know that?

You assert that there are only two options for the Universe. Caused and uncaused. What leads you to that conclusion? Causality is a property of our Universe. What makes you think that causal relationships exists separate from the Universe?


combining letters does not create a word. a word, by definition, is a sound, a pattern of letters, that correlates with an idea and is known and used by a group of people. if that jumble of letters yyou typed had a meaning and was used by people, then it would be a word.

again, your being very obtuse.


how do i know god would be the creator if he exists? BECAUSE THE WORD "GOD" MEANS "THE CREATOR".

again, your being very obtuse.


how do i know there are only two options for the universe, caused or uncaused ?  please, give me an example of another option.   ;D (heres a hint, something can not be "partially caused", it either is or it isnt.)


again, your being very obtuse.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 06:01:53 PM
I see nothing contradictory in the statement "existence doesn't demand eternity." Existence, as we understand it, is something finite. We are born then we die. We exist for a finite period of time. The Universe, on the other hand, can't be said to "exist" in the same sense because time is a property of the Universe. In that sense the Universe is eternal. But that doesn't necessarily preclude a beginning or an end vis-a-vis the Big Bang.

And as for "something didn't come from nothing" that really depends on what you mean. Quantum vacuum fluctuations, for example, can cause virtual particles to come into existence: TADA! Something from nothing.

The problem that you have with that statement though is much simpler: you hear people say "nothing was before the Big Bang" and you get confused. You look in front of you, and you see a computer screen. You look to your left and you see a plate of Totino's pizza pockets. And you wonder "well shit. There's stuff right here!" The answer is that you misunderstand what is meant because you don't have a background in theoretical physics. Read up on the Big Bang article at wikipedia. Eat your pizza pockets while doing it. You'll probably get a little better understanding.



if something came from nothing, then we could say the universe is not eternal. if something did not come from nothing, then we can say th euniverse is eternal. two options. only two.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 06:03:48 PM
if something came from nothing, then we could say the universe is not eternal. if something did not come from nothing, then we can say th euniverse is eternal. two options. only two.

The concept "eternal" doesn't apply to the Universe qua Universe because time is a property of the Universe itself. Eternal is a temporal concept that applies within the framework of spacetime.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: The_Leafy_Bug on October 16, 2011, 06:05:51 PM
if something came from nothing, then we could say the universe is not eternal. if something did not come from nothing, then we can say th euniverse is eternal. two options. only two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 06:09:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

That wont matter to theists.  :-\ :-\


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 06:10:15 PM
The concept "eternal" doesn't apply to the Universe qua Universe because time is a property of the Universe itself. Eternal is a temporal concept that applies within the framework of spacetime.
now your trying to obfuscate. the universe either always existed, or it was created. is that better?  :)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 06:12:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
chime in with a sentence or two, or a paragraph or three if you have anything to say. im not watching an hour long video to hear the same bullshit im already refuting in this thread.

either there is no answer, the universe always existed. or the universe was created.  only two options.

you can start by addressing that. if you have nothing you think refutes that then i have no qualms with your ideas and your presence is not needed. 


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: The_Leafy_Bug on October 16, 2011, 06:15:23 PM
chime in with a sentence or two, or a paragraph or three if you have anything to say. im not watching an hour long video to hear the same bullshit im already refuting in this thread.

either there is no answer, the universe always existed. or the universe was created.  only two options.

you can start by addressing that. if you have nothing you think refutes that then i have no qualms with your ideas and your presence is not needed. 
No actually it explains a possible way that something came from nothing but you generation nothingness attention span will not allow you to learn anything new so i see i wasted my time. Hell you probably stopped reading at no actually. Go back to what your good at, snorting lines and being taken advantage of anally.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 06:17:13 PM
now your trying to obfuscate. the universe either always existed, or it was created. is that better?  :)

Look up "false dilemma" with Google.

... im not watching an hour long video to hear the same bullshit im already refuting in this thread...  

LOL... The only thing you're refuting is that there's a minimum IQ necessary to post on GB.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: daddy8ball on October 16, 2011, 06:56:11 PM
Look up "false dilemma" with Google.

LOL... The only thing you're refuting is that there's a minimum IQ necessary to post on GB.

yeah, yeah, anyone who disagrees with you has a small iq...lol..i know...we can't hang..  ::)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Beener on October 16, 2011, 07:15:50 PM
What I'm saying is science, CAN prove everything. 

It hasn't explained why you put that comma there.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 07:18:48 PM
i assume your both refering to the fac that particles "pop"in and out of existence due to "quantum fluctuations" and take this to mean that "something came from nothing".  but what caused the particle to pop into existence? the quantum fluctuation? if such a thing exists, then it is part of the universe, and somehting didnt come from nothing, it came from the quantum fluctuation.  but where did the quantum fluctuation come from, what caused it to happen? and what caused that to happen, and so forth? no matter what science explains.. the big bang, quantum fluctuations, etc..  its all part of the universe. and either the universe, and everything inside of it (including quantum fluctuations) has always existed, or it was created at some point.  so have quantum fluctuations and the potential for matter to "pop" into existence always existed.. or was it created at some time?  ;)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 07:21:25 PM
What I'm saying is science, CAN prove everything.  We don't have an understanding of the science yet.  It's just waiting to be found or unearthed...You are correct.  It's no different then thousands of years ago when the unexplained would be attributed to a supernatural power...That hasn't stopped science from progressing IMO although I see more for profit vs. in the name of science today.

Good point, I agree.

Its actually more frustrating than anything, which is why I choose not debate theists any more.

both of you seem to have the same idea..  that there MUST BE AN ANSWER, and that science can find that answer. once you realize science is incapable of answering that question because by definition science can not enter the realm of the supernatural, you realize that your gut feeling of "THERE MUST BE AN ANSWER" is telling you that god has to exist.  ;) doesnt mean god exists, but explains to you why 90+% of the world find it very easy to believe.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 07:23:48 PM
both of you seem to have the same idea..  that there MUST BE AN ANSWER, and that science can find that answer. once you realize science is incapable of answering that question because by definition science can not enter the realm of the supernatural, you realize that your gut feeling of "THERE MUST BE AN ANSWER" is telling you that god has to exist.  ;) doesnt mean god exists, but explains to you why 90+% of the world find it very easy to believe.

No, a god does not exist.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 07:24:29 PM
and leafy if you truly think there was something valuable in that video direct me to the segment and ill watch it, or just write it down in your own words. i assure you though, there is nothing you can find anywhere in any video or any scientific discovery that will ever provide information to indicate that science can find an "answer" for the origin of the universe.  by its very defintion science is incapable of doing so.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 16, 2011, 07:25:09 PM
No, a god does not exist.
maybe not, but if you feel like "there must be an answer" then eventually your going to realize that you think god must exist.. or betray your gut feeling.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Voice of Doom on October 16, 2011, 07:40:11 PM
maybe not, but if you feel like "there must be an answer" then eventually your going to realize that you think god must exist.. or betray your gut feeling.

We get it...you believe in sublimating yourself on your knees to the big and powerful sky daddy...you also take cock in the ass...check & mate.   ::)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 07:40:41 PM
Everything that is outside the realm of the laws of nature.

No it doesn't. Where does it demand such a thing?

Putting words in my mouth won't help you win any arguments.  I never said "something came from nothing" and that's a very common misconception of people who don't have a background in science, and at least a rudimentary understanding of advanced and theoretical physics.

My answer to your question about 'where all this matter comes from' would be exceedingly long to type here, but feel free to visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory) for a decent (and pretty accessible) explanation of how science understands the formation of the Universe. The theory is certainly not complete and there are questions it cannot answer (such as the baryonic asymmetry we observe) but that's how science is.

As to what came "before" the Big Bang, I will again point out that the question is meaningless, because it assumes temporal causality divorced from time.



I was personally discussing evolution vs. creationism from a biological perspective.  All you've stated is that creationism is wrong by the definition of science and it seems like you're now trying to bring theoretical physics into the argument as well? I'm by no means a thoeritical physicist, but I'd venture to say that most debates regarding creation and evolution will deal with issues from the biological and geological sciences, not theoretical physics. I'm sure you could find some way to bring it in, but if you've ever seen debates between creation scientists and evolutionists, the topic is rarely broached. The meat is in the biology, such as in the experiment that ND linked to. As you stated, it's tough to respond to these issues on a message board, but I'd just say that that citrate experiment has been discussed by various creation scientists, and it's an interesting read. Again, it comes down to definitions and an understanding of biology. The linked article is VERY MISLEADING. It makes it seem like these cells gaining the ability to metabolize citrate is this dramatic new event. It almost seems to imply that the entire metabolic pathway for citrate metabolism evolved in this particular cell line. The reality is, however, E. coli CAN metabolize citrate; they have all the necessary cellular machinery to do so. Apparently under oxic conditions, they cannot transport citrate into the cell. So all they had to do was find a way to get citrate into the cell under oxic conditions, and they could metabolize it. Basically a transport issue. That's a lot different that evolving an entirely new pathway of citrate metabolism, which this article misleadingly implies. So apparently 1 cell line after 30,000 generations gains this ability...and that's macroevolution? And do we even know what the change was that led to the ability? Perhaps a slight alteration of an existing transport protein? I don't see that mentioned in the article.
And as far as the comment about a rudimentary understanding of theoretical physics, you're right-- I'm a physician, but I have a background in evolutionary biology as well...and that's what I'm discussing here.  I'm guessing your knowledge of biology is about as rudimentary as my knowledge of physics. But I appreciate the link on the Big bang and will check it out.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: SF1900 on October 16, 2011, 07:42:47 PM
maybe not, but if you feel like "there must be an answer" then eventually your going to realize that you think god must exist.. or betray your gut feeling.

no, youre wrong.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 07:50:09 PM
yeah, yeah, anyone who disagrees with you has a small iq...lol..i know...we can't hang..  ::)

No, only those who clearly refuse to read what's being written and spit out the same thing again and again and again and again. Like tbombz.

i assume your both refering to the fac that particles "pop"in and out of existence due to "quantum fluctuations" and take this to mean that "something came from nothing".  

That is what happens. Study quantum mechanics.



and either the universe, and everything inside of it (including quantum fluctuations) has always existed, or it was created at some point.

For the last time, it's meaningless to apply causal and temporal ordering relationships to the Universe itself. Time is a prerequisite for words like "always" and "at some point" and "at some time." Time is a property of the Universe itself. Time, as we understand it and live it doesn't exist outside of the Universe. So words like "at some point" and "at some time" are meaningless outside of the current context of existence -- the Universe.


so have quantum fluctuations and the potential for matter to "pop" into existence always existed.. or was it created at some time?  ;)

Creation isn't a prerequisite. You waive your hands around frantically and claim that it is, but your only supporting evidence is you screaming "it's either eternal or it was created." I say NONSENSE.


once you realize science is incapable of answering that question because by definition science can not enter the realm of the supernatural, you realize that your gut feeling of "THERE MUST BE AN ANSWER" is telling you that god has to exist.  ;) doesnt mean god exists, but explains to you why 90+% of the world find it very easy to believe.

Science is "incapable" of answering that question in the same sense that humans are "incapable" of being potatoes. Science deals with nature and its laws; not fairytales. It provides the answers when you ask the right questions.

You again assert that "there must be an answer" implies god. I call bullshit. Why god and not something else? "Oh," you'll say "whatever it is, it's god." That's the problem when you're refusing to provide concrete non-circular definitions of words and insist on debating nebulous concepts that, by your own admission, are incomprehensible.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 08:20:36 PM
And, look, I'd just add that I frankly don't know what the "right" answer is to this. I'm pleading ignorance. I took a few classes in evolutionary biology and worked with a prominent evolutionist as an undegrad. That's about it. I will say that I was very underwhelmed by the "evidence" for evolution. Almost the entire class was spent discussing microevolution, and whenever the issue of God came up, we always heard the usual "science requires a naturalistic explanation." I began to get the sense that microevolution was enough because they excluded god a priori. I'm not necessarily satisfied with that. This being said, I personally just think it's ridiculous when people who probably have no formal training in science call other people ignorant, backwards, etc. for not belieiving what they do (and "believe" is the key word here because 99.9% of the world couldn't even begin to give a rational defense of creationism or evolution...and yet everyone seems to have such a strong opinion on the topic.) I personally find it insulting, and I just wonder what the hell I'm missing because it isn't very clear to me at all.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 08:21:13 PM
how do i know there are only two options for the universe, caused or uncaused ?  please, give me an example of another option.   ;D (heres a hint, something can not be "partially caused", it either is or it isnt.)


again, your being very obtuse.
WIKIPEDIA BITCHES!
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" [where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"], is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
 
Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.
 
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 08:22:58 PM

I was personally discussing evolution vs. creationism from a biological perspective.  All you've stated is that creationism is wrong by the definition of science and it seems like you're now trying to bring theoretical physics into the argument as well? I'm by no means a thoeritical physicist, but I'd venture to say that most debates regarding creation and evolution will deal with issues from the biological and geological sciences, not theoretical physics. I'm sure you could find some way to bring it in, but if you've ever seen debates between creation scientists and evolutionists, the topic is rarely broached. The meat is in the biology, such as in the experiment that ND linked to. As you stated, it's tough to respond to these issues on a message board, but I'd just say that that citrate experiment has been discussed by various creation scientists, and it's an interesting read. Again, it comes down to definitions and an understanding of biology. The linked article is VERY MISLEADING. It makes it seem like these cells gaining the ability to metabolize citrate is this dramatic new event. It almost seems to imply that the entire metabolic pathway for citrate metabolism evolved in this particular cell line. The reality is, however, E. coli CAN metabolize citrate; they have all the necessary cellular machinery to do so. Apparently under oxic conditions, they cannot transport citrate into the cell. So all they had to do was find a way to get citrate into the cell under oxic conditions, and they could metabolize it. Basically a transport issue. That's a lot different that evolving an entirely new pathway of citrate metabolism, which this article misleadingly implies. So apparently 1 cell line after 30,000 generations gains this ability...and that's macroevolution? And do we even know what the change was that led to the ability? Perhaps a slight alteration of an existing transport protein? I don't see that mentioned in the article.
And as far as the comment about a rudimentary understanding of theoretical physics, you're right-- I'm a physician, but I have a background in evolutionary biology as well...and that's what I'm discussing here.  I'm guessing your knowledge of biology is about as rudimentary as my knowledge of physics. But I appreciate the link on the Big bang and will check it out.

You asked where all this matter comes from, and I provided a link that you could read that might answer some of those questions. We can discuss biology if you prefer although I'm not a biologist. Or a physician even, but I'll try to keep up.

As to e.coli metabolizing citrate, I think that you need to re-examine your viewpoint. You say that creating a new metabolic pathway is one thing, whereas transporting citrate across cellular membranes is another. That's certainly true. But for e.coli to gain the ability to transfer citrate across its cellular membranes is by no means the simple event you suggest it is. Mediated transport is by no means trivial and requires complex mechanics involving highly specific permeases. You suggest that perhaps a small change to an existing permease could be responsible. Let's assume that is true. It would be a textbook case of an epimutation and microevolution, and I don't think you'd disagree with that.

In your own line of work, as a physician, you see microevolution happen all the time. You are, no doubt, aware of the alarming rise of drug-resistant bacteria and how they are fast becoming a major concern for physicians and health authorities. That is evolution and natural selection at work.

I suspect that you are not opposed to the theory of evolution per se, but have objections when it comes to macro- vs. micro-evolution. But you know full well that macro-evolution doesn't mean, boom, out of the blue, a monkey evolves into a human. It's a painstakingly long process that works across hundreds of thousands of years...

So, do you have any specific misgivings about the theory of evolution that you would like to bring up? I wouldn't mind discussing it, even though I'm not a biologist.



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: RadOncDoc on October 16, 2011, 08:43:32 PM
You asked where all this matter comes from, and I provided a link that you could read that might answer some of those questions. We can discuss biology if you prefer although I'm not a biologist. Or a physician even, but I'll try to keep up.

As to e.coli metabolizing citrate, I think that you need to re-examine your viewpoint. You say that creating a new metabolic pathway is one thing, whereas transporting citrate across cellular membranes is another. That's certainly true. But for e.coli to gain the ability to transfer citrate across its cellular membranes is by no means the simple event you suggest it is. Mediated transport is by no means trivial and requires complex mechanics involving highly specific permeases. You suggest that perhaps a small change to an existing permease could be responsible. Let's assume that is true. It would be a textbook case of an epimutation and microevolution, and I don't think you'd disagree with that.

In your own line of work, as a physician, you see microevolution happen all the time. You are, no doubt, aware of the alarming rise of drug-resistant bacteria and how they are fast becoming a major concern for physicians and health authorities. That is evolution and natural selection at work.

I suspect that you are not opposed to the theory of evolution per se, but have objections when it comes to macro- vs. micro-evolution. But you know full well that macro-evolution doesn't mean, boom, out of the blue, a monkey evolves into a human. It's a painstakingly long process that works across hundreds of thousands of years...

So, do you have any specific misgivings about the theory of evolution that you would like to bring up? I wouldn't mind discussing it, even though I'm not a biologist.



You make excellent points and have definitely summarized my dilemma. Microevolution=fact. In a God-less system, macroevolution also=fact. So if you're an atheist, there are no other options. But I think when you consider the possibility of a God (another argument, another time :) ), it complicates things because quite honestly you can explain most observable phenomenon from either perspective (creationism or evolution). An evolutionist calls that citrate experiment "microevolution"; the creationist calls it adaptation. Similarities in DNA sequences...evolutionist says "we evolved from common ancestor." Creation scientist says "God worked from a common template." It's very discouraging, and in my own personal experience, the choice between the two felt like it was made outside of science. My professors who studied evolution were all atheists and the creation scientists I knew were all religious. And again, my reason for bringing up these points is that it always amazes me about how passionate people get about these issues when I find them frankly quite unclear.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 08:46:26 PM
One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CARTEL on October 16, 2011, 08:53:52 PM
God created science.

Consider your mind blown.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 08:57:12 PM
God created science.

Consider your mind blown.
Mind created god - Consider your mind a poor example of the evolutionary process.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 16, 2011, 09:03:52 PM
[...] But I think when you consider the possibility of a God (another argument, another time :) ), it complicates things because quite honestly you can explain most observable phenomenon from either perspective (creationism or evolution). [...] And again, my reason for bringing up these points is that it always amazes me about how passionate people get about these issues when I find them frankly quite unclear.

To me the answer to this type of question has always been clear. Ultimately, it boils down to this: "I can answer X using this falsifiable theory that seems to fit the facts we have at hand so far, or I can posit the existence of something that's not falsifiable and then say that's what responsible for X through some unknowable means." Occam's razor.



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CARTEL on October 16, 2011, 09:06:49 PM
Mind created god - Consider your mind a poor example of the evolutionary process.

Oh yeah, prove it.

Atheists are just as overbearing and full of shit as the religious nuts.

Your religion is Atheism and you try to spread your "gospel" just as hard to the masses as anyone else.

Nobody gives two fucks what you think except the polar opposite. Opposite sides of the same coin trying to indoctrinate the other.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 16, 2011, 09:21:58 PM
Oh yeah, prove it.

Atheists are just as overbearing and full of shit as the religious nuts.

Your religion is Atheism and you try to spread your "gospel" just as hard to the masses as anyone else.

Nobody gives two fucks what you think except the polar opposite. Opposite sides of the same coin trying to indoctrinate the other.
Proof: Recently when my Mums Neigbour - A Religious Zealot Died - After Death I approached the dead woman and asked her if God existed. I received No Response - I guess it was just her mind that created it.  Once her mind ceased to exist, so did her Notion of God.
I dont care what people believe, I know and like the truth, so thats what I stick with.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: MAXX on October 16, 2011, 09:29:25 PM
Oh yeah, prove it.

Atheists are just as overbearing and full of shit as the religious nuts.

Your religion is Atheism and you try to spread your "gospel" just as hard to the masses as anyone else.

Nobody gives two fucks what you think except the polar opposite. Opposite sides of the same coin trying to indoctrinate the other.
it's called believing in facts backed by proof, or the best theory available. call it what you want.

it's not a religion. religion is faith based. you believe blindly in some fairytales. most likely because you grew up with it and your parents taught you so. and you're too stupid to think for yourself.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: asbrus on October 16, 2011, 09:41:11 PM
both of you seem to have the same idea..  that there MUST BE AN ANSWER, and that science can find that answer. once you realize science is incapable of answering that question because by definition science can not enter the realm of the supernatural, you realize that your gut feeling of "THERE MUST BE AN ANSWER" is telling you that god has to exist.  ;) doesnt mean god exists, but explains to you why 90+% of the world find it very easy to believe.

S0 WH0 CREATED G0D? Y0U C0NTRADICT Y0URSELF BY SAYING  THAT S0METHING MUST  HAVE CREATED THE QUANTAM FLUCTUATI0NS BUT IGN0RE THE ANSWER 0N WH0 CREATED G0D? THE LAWS 0F PHYSICS SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN C0ME FR0M N0THING. A UNIVERSE FR0M N0THING EQUALS N0 NEED F0R G0D.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 17, 2011, 12:40:03 AM
S0 WH0 CREATED G0D? Y0U C0NTRADICT Y0URSELF BY SAYING  THAT S0METHING MUST  HAVE CREATED THE QUANTAM FLUCTUATI0NS BUT IGN0RE THE ANSWER 0N WH0 CREATED G0D? THE LAWS 0F PHYSICS SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN C0ME FR0M N0THING. A UNIVERSE FR0M N0THING EQUALS N0 NEED F0R G0D.
END OF THREAD


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 17, 2011, 12:57:25 AM
Dawkins is as ignorant as O'Reilly. Natural sciences are based on a unspoken axiom that Universe is regular, ie. if apple falls on a ground 100 times it will fall every time. We do not know and are in fact obviously unable to build axiomatic system that may be "behind" the Universe. Everything we can have is some mathmatical model based on few assumptions. It works in practice but doesn't make us any closer in the search for the "higher truth".

Some of you claim that there is answer somewhere and that we will find it eventually - unfortunatelly, it's not that obvious for me either. Let's take computer for example. There are certain problems which computer cannot solve and it's not becouse they're not fast enough, we lack memory, or whatever - we can't solve them becouse it's impossible. Those are simple problems like "given program S will it stop?". Proof that it's impossible to create program answering this question is very simple. Also we can prove that there are real numbers for which it's impossible to build program which for number i gives you it's i-th digit. Actually majority of real numbers are like that.

Those facts give me an intuition that in the quest of exploring universe we're in deep shithole. I think there are certain problems we just cannot solve and are not designed to solve. There are some questions which simply cannot be answered and I deeply believe that most of questions are like that.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 17, 2011, 01:02:42 AM


Those facts give me an intuition that in the quest of exploring universe we're in deep shithole. I think there are certain problems we just cannot solve and are not designed to solve. There are some questions which simply cannot be answered and I deeply believe that most of questions are like that.
But isnt the staement "It cant be Answered" an Answer


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 17, 2011, 02:19:14 AM
But isnt the staement "It cant be Answered" an Answer

It's an answer to different question - can this question be answered?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 17, 2011, 02:56:07 AM
It's an answer to different question - can this question be answered?
No its not.  Because the answer to "Can this question be answered?" is "Yes"


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: farrellzach on October 17, 2011, 04:51:15 AM
Did O'Reilly really say that?

There is a reason for the Moon and the Sun...

His argument then changes to "How did the moon get there? You can't explain that."


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 17, 2011, 04:55:19 AM
I hate to be a asshole but this thread doesn't disappoint in how predictable it is


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 17, 2011, 05:00:36 AM
btw, not to add on to the predictable pile that is this thread but I just, really, find it laughable at how these very smart men with several decades of Ivy league education amongst are pining away at telling us that something isn't there.



It's like, you know that there is Cancer and AIDS....how about you use your smarts to fix that and then work on telling us that something isn't there


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Swede! on October 17, 2011, 05:45:34 AM
It's only on American forums a thread like this grows to 10 pages lol (soon to be). And ironically probably Afghanistan forums also if they have any lol


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: ob205 on October 17, 2011, 10:27:44 AM
So let us assume there is a God, which one is it?  Can it be all of them?  Allah, Jesus, Hindu, etc.

Are they all the same and only came about from different regions of the world?

Why do some religions believe theirs is the only true way?  (Born agains calling Mormonism a cult)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 17, 2011, 10:35:59 AM
No its not.  Because the answer to "Can this question be answered?" is "Yes"

Rofl you're an idiot.

Some questions specify in itself what kind of object should be an answer. If there is no such object then "no such object" isn't an answer, coz it's different kind of object.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 17, 2011, 11:13:10 AM
No, only those who clearly refuse to read what's being written and spit out the same thing again and again and again and again. Like tbombz.

That is what happens. Study quantum mechanics.



For the last time, it's meaningless to apply causal and temporal ordering relationships to the Universe itself. Time is a prerequisite for words like "always" and "at some point" and "at some time." Time is a property of the Universe itself. Time, as we understand it and live it doesn't exist outside of the Universe. So words like "at some point" and "at some time" are meaningless outside of the current context of existence -- the Universe.


Creation isn't a prerequisite. You waive your hands around frantically and claim that it is, but your only supporting evidence is you screaming "it's either eternal or it was created." I say NONSENSE.


Science is "incapable" of answering that question in the same sense that humans are "incapable" of being potatoes. Science deals with nature and its laws; not fairytales. It provides the answers when you ask the right questions.

You again assert that "there must be an answer" implies god. I call bullshit. Why god and not something else? "Oh," you'll say "whatever it is, it's god." That's the problem when you're refusing to provide concrete non-circular definitions of words and insist on debating nebulous concepts that, by your own admission, are incomprehensible.
god is whatever created the universe. if the universe wasnt created, then there is no god. if it was created then there is a god.

 time applies to anything we talk about. if you say time cant apply, then your saying something outside of the universe exists, and for that to be true there must be something SUPERNATURAL (aka god).  ;)



S0 WH0 CREATED G0D? Y0U C0NTRADICT Y0URSELF BY SAYING  THAT S0METHING MUST  HAVE CREATED THE QUANTAM FLUCTUATI0NS BUT IGN0RE THE ANSWER 0N WH0 CREATED G0D? THE LAWS 0F PHYSICS SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN C0ME FR0M N0THING. A UNIVERSE FR0M N0THING EQUALS N0 NEED F0R G0D.

god, by definiton, is "the creator". asking "who created the creator" is non sequitor. but asking "what causes quantum fluctuations" is perfectly logical.  laws of physics say quantum fluctuations can cause particles to pop into existence.. but where does the quantum fluctuation come from? at what point in time did they start happening, and why ?   ;)  (quantum fluctuations are not supernatural, and therefore are subject to questions about their true nature.. whereas something supernatural can not be questioned because by defintion the answers are outside of our reach. )

So let us assume there is a God, which one is it?  Can it be all of them?  Allah, Jesus, Hindu, etc.

Are they all the same and only came about from different regions of the world?

Why do some religions believe theirs is the only true way?  (Born agains calling Mormonism a cult)
if god exists, god is not allah, jesus, yahweh, or any other. god is god. people throughout time have believed there must be a god and have created their own stories about him. but they didnt have any idea what god truly is, they just made shit up. but  surely, if god does exist, it doesnt matter what you call him or what religion you subscribe to, if any, whenever you speak to "the heavens", your speaking to god.   

this is not rocket science people


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 17, 2011, 11:30:34 AM
time applies to anything we talk about. if you say time cant apply, then your saying something outside of the universe exists, and for that to be true there must be something SUPERNATURAL (aka god).

Time is a property of the Universe and applies to everything that is contained within it. You are the one that keeps using terms like "before" and "some point" to indicate temporal relationships as something that exists separately from the Universe. Temporal causality -- or causality as we understand it -- is meaningless outside the framework of spacetime.


god, by definiton, is "the creator".

That's not a definition. You assume that a creator is necessary, and then you define 'god' (whatever that is) as the necessary creator. That's a fallacy known as begging the question. You may want to consider attending a introductory course in logic at your local Community College.


asking "who created the creator" is non sequitor.

So your argument boils down to this: "I assert that everything needs a creator, therefore the Universe needs a creator." And then, you immediately turn around and yell "I assert that the creator doesn't require a creator." Sorry tbombz, you can't have it both ways.



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 17, 2011, 12:07:27 PM


god, by definiton, is "the creator". asking "who created the creator" is non sequitor.

  So you are basically using the term "God" as a metaphor for the first cause. Why do you even need God for that? It is a logical necessity that the cause-and-effect chain is broken when we are talking about derivative branches in axiomatic systems. Why? Because in all derivative systems there is a starting axiom from which all following concepts derive from. In mathematics as well as computer language, this the acceptance of the concept of quantity(the number 1) and nothing(the number zero) Reality is a derivative process since all of complexity derives from more simple things, such as in molecules deriving from more simple atoms and complex molecules like the DNA deriving from more simple ones like nucleic acids. Likewise, all mass in the Uiniverse derived from a singularity billions of years ago because the Universe is expanding in all directions so it came from a focal point in the past. God is not necessary because it is an a priori logical necessity for a first cause to exist in any derivative system like our reality. The first cause can be seen in two ways: nothing more than a logical(axiomatic) necessity in a logically derivative process like our reality, or the first cause is not really the first cause but an effect of a previous cause, which makes it not really the first cause and brings us back to point one: that the first cause is simply an a priori condition for anything(even the thoughts that allows us to have this discussion in the first place) to exist. This does not require God, just like you can define any axioms you want and create your own mathematics with them that is only valid if you accept those axioms as true. Your problem, 'Tbombz", is that you don't have a working definition of anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 17, 2011, 12:18:15 PM
Great post. suckmymuscle speaks the truth!


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Skeletor on October 17, 2011, 12:20:06 PM
 So you are basically using the term "God" as a metaphor for the first cause. Why do you even need God for that? It is a logical necessity that the cause-and-effect chain is broken when we are talking about derivative branches in axiomatic systems. Why? Because in all derivative systems there is a starting axiom from which all following concepts derive from. In mathematics as well as computer language, this the acceptance of the concept of quantity(the number 1) and nothing(the number zero) Reality is a derivative process since all of complexity derives from more simple things, such as in molecules deriving from more simple atoms and complex molecules like the DNA deriving from more simple ones like nucleic acids. Likewise, all mass in the Uiniverse derived from a singularity billions of years ago because the Universe is expanding in all directions so it came from a focal point in the past. God is not necessary because it is an a priori logical necessity for a first cause to exist in any derivative system like our reality. The first cause can be seen in two ways: nothing more than a logical(axiomatic) necessity in a logically derivative process like our reality, or the first cause is not really the first cause but an effect of a previous cause, which makes it not really the first cause and brings us back to point one: that the first cause is simply an a priori condition for anything(even the thoughts that allows us to have this discussion in the first place) to exist. This does not require God, just like you can define any axioms you want and create your own mathematics with them that is only valid if you accept those axioms as true. Your problem, 'Tbombz", is thart you don't have a working definition of anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Well, he did provide an empirical definition of anal sex.  ;D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: James28 on October 17, 2011, 02:07:32 PM
Wow, it's 2011 and we're still discussing religion?  ???


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: The_Leafy_Bug on October 17, 2011, 02:08:37 PM
and leafy if you truly think there was something valuable in that video direct me to the segment and ill watch it, or just write it down in your own words. i assure you though, there is nothing you can find anywhere in any video or any scientific discovery that will ever provide information to indicate that science can find an "answer" for the origin of the universe.  by its very defintion science is incapable of doing so.
Ok so then why say it is God because we don't know the answer? I like talking tea pot better. If we are going to use our imagination to fill in what we don't know then why not use a tea pot?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CARTEL on October 17, 2011, 07:40:56 PM
it's called believing in facts backed by proof, or the best theory available. call it what you want.

it's not a religion. religion is faith based. you believe blindly in some fairytales. most likely because you grew up with it and your parents taught you so. and you're too stupid to think for yourself.

Uh, who said I belong to a faith.

You are arguing that science can explain everything. Who is to say that a God didn't make it that way.

Your proof is your faith in science, their proof is their faith in God. I'm just saying you are both sanctimonious assholes.



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: MAXX on October 17, 2011, 07:47:38 PM
Uh, who said I belong to a faith.

You are arguing that science can explain everything. Who is to say that a God didn't make it that way.

Your proof is your faith in science, their proof is their faith in God. I'm just saying you are both sanctimonious assholes.


you must belong to either or. and since you say I'm wrong, then you believe in some kind of creator/god/what ever.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CARTEL on October 17, 2011, 07:59:00 PM
you must belong to either or. and since you say I'm wrong, then you believe in some kind of creator/god/what ever.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying why are both sides so friggin uptight about indoctrinating everybody else?

People suing City's to take down crosses that have been up for years or getting rid of Christmas decorations. There are bigger problems to worry about.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 17, 2011, 10:33:15 PM
Time is a property of the Universe and applies to everything that is contained within it. You are the one that keeps using terms like "before" and "some point" to indicate temporal relationships as something that exists separately from the Universe. Temporal causality -- or causality as we understand it -- is meaningless outside the framework of spacetime.

time is always meaningful, unless something outside of space-time exists.  by your own admission. because time doesnt apply to anytihng but space-time. so if time dosnt apply, then its something outside of space time to which it doesnt apply.  therefore we can either always use temporal language or something outside of time exists (ie the SUPERNATURAL)


That's not a definition. You assume that a creator is necessary, and then you define 'god' (whatever that is) as the necessary creator. That's a fallacy known as begging the question. You may want to consider attending a introductory course in logic at your local Community College.

god= "the creator". that is a definition. unicorn= "flying horse with a single horn on its head" <-- also a definition.  i dont assume a creator is necessary. i have said time and time again, either the universe is uncaused and there is no god OR the universe was caused by god. there are two options. god is not logically required, for the option of the uncaused universe is also a possibility. 


So your argument boils down to this: "I assert that everything needs a creator, therefore the Universe needs a creator." And then, you immediately turn around and yell "I assert that the creator doesn't require a creator." Sorry tbombz, you can't have it both ways.

no, my argument is this. in fact its not an argument but a fact. either the universe was created, or it was not. period.






  So you are basically using the term "God" as a metaphor for the first cause. Why do you even need God for that? It is a logical necessity that the cause-and-effect chain is broken when we are talking about derivative branches in axiomatic systems. Why? Because in all derivative systems there is a starting axiom from which all following concepts derive from. In mathematics as well as computer language, this the acceptance of the concept of quantity(the number 1) and nothing(the number zero) Reality is a derivative process since all of complexity derives from more simple things, such as in molecules deriving from more simple atoms and complex molecules like the DNA deriving from more simple ones like nucleic acids. Likewise, all mass in the Uiniverse derived from a singularity billions of years ago because the Universe is expanding in all directions so it came from a focal point in the past. God is not necessary because it is an a priori logical necessity for a first cause to exist in any derivative system like our reality. The first cause can be seen in two ways: nothing more than a logical(axiomatic) necessity in a logically derivative process like our reality, or the first cause is not really the first cause but an effect of a previous cause, which makes it not really the first cause and brings us back to point one: that the first cause is simply an a priori condition for anything(even the thoughts that allows us to have this discussion in the first place) to exist. This does not require God, just like you can define any axioms you want and create your own mathematics with them that is only valid if you accept those axioms as true. Your problem, 'Tbombz", is thart you don't have a working definition of anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

"first cause", "god", same difference.  an uncaused cause, "the first cause", is supernatural if it is truly uncaused. if there is some cause, then it isnt the "first cause", and it isnt god.  your wrong when you say a first cause is necessary, infinite regression is possible. your actually making an argument for the existence of god, the same argument saint thomas aquinas used to try and prove gods existence. but the argument fails. luckily for you.  ;)



Ok so then why say it is God because we don't know the answer? I like talking tea pot better. If we are going to use our imagination to fill in what we don't know then why not use a tea pot?
i didnt say god did anything. what im doing is pointing out the fact that either god created the universe, or the universe was not created and therefore eternal and uncaused with no origin and no deifnitive answer to its true nature.  not using my imagination and not making any assumptions, just clear and simple logic.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 17, 2011, 10:54:15 PM
god= "the creator". that is a definition. unicorn= "flying horse with a single horn on its head" <-- also a definition.  i dont assume a creator is necessary. i have said time and time again, either the universe is uncaused and there is no god OR the universe was caused by god. there are two options. god is not logically required, for the option of the uncaused universe is also a possibility.

No, "god = the creator" isn't a definition. A definition provides a description of the nature the scope and the meaning of something. All you've done is provide what you claim is a synonym. If you want to play that game, my next question will be "what is the creator" and you cannot turn around and answer "god" because then you'll have a circular (and therefore useless) definition.

The fact is that your definition, as it stands now, is meaningless.


no, my argument is this. in fact its not an argument but a fact. either the universe was created, or it was not. period.

You assume that it's a fact, but that doesn't make it so. And you insist on using words out of any rational context and I am not going to let you get away with it. Please explain what "created" means divorced from causality. Please explain how you distinguish between the condition where no Universe exists and where a Universe exists, without using temporal references like "before" "at some point in time" and "after" since those terms are meaningless outside of the Universe.




Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 17, 2011, 11:50:01 PM
first cause", "god", same difference.  an uncaused cause, "the first cause", is supernatural if it is truly uncaused. if there is some cause, then it isnt the "first cause", and it isnt god.  your wrong when you say a first cause is necessary, infinite regression is possible. your actually making an argument for the existence of god, the same argument saint thomas aquinas used to try and prove gods existence. but the argument fails. luckily for you.

  The first cause, by definition, is uncaused. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be the first cause. So you using the expression "uncaused cause" is both a redundancy as well as a logical impossibility. And no, this does not prove the existence of God and here's why. Causality is a function of matter. If you define the substrate of reality as matter, and if you accept that matter only came into being with the Big Bang - and all evidence indicates that - then it makes no sense to speak of causality for the existence of matter. Matter contains the condition that allows causality to start, so reality can spring from nothingness without any required cause since the very existence of cause at the conceptual level only exists after the first cause appeared. No God required. And if causality regresses back ad nauseum - if we assume that quantum fluctuations occur linearly and not in parallel fashion which is what would be required for it to function with time - this also doesen't prove that God exists because then you are saying that God is the first cause, since causality itself could not exist without him . So your argument is self-defeating and a complete logical impossibility - an infinite cause-and-effect chain completely precludes the possibility of the existence of God since it removes from God the property of being responsible for creation since there is no first cause making God not God. And you completely misunderstood Aquinas argument. It had nothing to do with that.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 18, 2011, 01:24:38 AM
 The first cause, by definition, is uncaused. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be the first cause. So you using the expression "uncaused cause" is both a redundancy as well as a logical impossibility. And no, this does not prove the existence of God and here's why. Causality is a function of matter. If you define the substrate of reality as matter, and if you accept that matter only came into being with the Big Bang - and all evidence indicates that - then it makes no sense to speak of causality for the existence of matter. Matter contains the condition that allows causality to start, so reality can spring from nothingness without any required cause since the very existence of cause at the conceptual level only exists after the first cause appeared. No God required. And if causality regresses back ad nauseum - if we assume that quantum fluctuations occur linearly and not in parallel fashion which is what would be required for it to function with time - this also doesen't prove that God exists because then you are saying that God is the first cause, since causality itself could not exist without him . So your argument is self-defeating and a complete logical impossibility - an infinite cause-and-effect chain completely precludes the possibility of the existence of God since it removes from God the property of being responsible for creation since there is no first cause making God not God. And you completely misunderstood Aquinas argument. It had nothing to do with that.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Now lets that be the end of it - God could not possibly exist. And even if he did, it wouldnt change shit.  The Average pesons life will still be just as miserable as it was yesterday.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 18, 2011, 08:08:12 AM
Now lets that be the end of it - God could not possibly exist. And even if he did, it wouldnt change shit.  The Average pesons life will still be just as miserable as it was yesterday.

  It won't end. "Tbombz" likes to argue for the sake of arguing so that he can give the same word 20 different meaning and listen to himself. His posts are rich in verbiage, poor on concepts and he fails at the most basic deductive logic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2011, 08:18:34 AM
No, "god = the creator" isn't a definition. A definition provides a description of the nature the scope and the meaning of something. All you've done is provide what you claim is a synonym. If you want to play that game, my next question will be "what is the creator" and you cannot turn around and answer "god" because then you'll have a circular (and therefore useless) definition.

The fact is that your definition, as it stands now, is meaningless.

god= a term for the creator of the universe, a diety which may or may not exist. an incomprehensible figure due to its inherent supernatural nature.



better now idiot ?



You assume that it's a fact, but that doesn't make it so. And you insist on using words out of any rational context and I am not going to let you get away with it. Please explain what "created" means divorced from causality. Please explain how you distinguish between the condition where no Universe exists and where a Universe exists, without using temporal references like "before" "at some point in time" and "after" since those terms are meaningless outside of the Universe.

if there was ever a condition when the universe didnt exist it would have to be located either before, or after the existence of the current universe. in that case the universe was CREATED at some POINT IN TIME. if there was never a condition in which the universe did not exist, then the universe is ETERNAL.

simple. 






 The first cause, by definition, is uncaused. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be the first cause. So you using the expression "uncaused cause" is both a redundancy as well as a logical impossibility. And no, this does not prove the existence of God and here's why. Causality is a function of matter. If you define the substrate of reality as matter, and if you accept that matter only came into being with the Big Bang - and all evidence indicates that - then it makes no sense to speak of causality for the existence of matter. Matter contains the condition that allows causality to start, so reality can spring from nothingness without any required cause since the very existence of cause at the conceptual level only exists after the first cause appeared. No God required. And if causality regresses back ad nauseum - if we assume that quantum fluctuations occur linearly and not in parallel fashion which is what would be required for it to function with time - this also doesen't prove that God exists because then you are saying that God is the first cause, since causality itself could not exist without him . So your argument is self-defeating and a complete logical impossibility - an infinite cause-and-effect chain completely precludes the possibility of the existence of God since it removes from God the property of being responsible for creation since there is no first cause making God not God. And you completely misunderstood Aquinas argument. It had nothing to do with that.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

your close but not quite there. you understand the idea that the vast majority of people on earth believe, that there must have been a first cause. but this is not necessarily true. infinite regression, the eternal universe, is indeed a possibility. and yes, this would discount the need for a god. i dont claim god is a requirement for the existence of the universe. but if there was a first cause, an uncaused cause, then that cause, whatever it was, is god.  you also have the concept of the big bang wrong. matter was not created in the big bang, what happened was a point of "infinite' density exploded and spread its contents out into the universe. that point of density was and contained all the matter that exists today. moreover, quantum fluctuations are a thing in and of themselves and they are subject to questions of causality as well. where did quantum fluctuations come from and what causes them to happen? we either follow this chain to an infinite regression or we accept creation.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Swede! on October 18, 2011, 10:11:27 AM
in the big bang, what happened was

Did you just claim to Know what happened in Big Bang?


STOP THE PRESSES!!!!


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 18, 2011, 10:11:49 AM

your close but not quite there. you understand the idea that the vast majority of people on earth believe, that there must have been a first cause. but this is not necessarily true. infinite regression, the eternal universe, is indeed a possibility. and yes, this would discount the need for a god. i dont claim god is a requirement for the existence of the universe. but if there was a first cause, an uncaused cause, then that cause, whatever it was, is god.  you also have the concept of the big bang wrong. matter was not created in the big bang, what happened was a point of "infinite' density exploded and spread its contents out into the universe. that point of density was and contained all the matter that exists today. moreover, quantum fluctuations are a thing in and of themselves and they are subject to questions of causality as well. where did quantum fluctuations come from and what causes them to happen? we either follow this chain to an infinite regression or we accept creation.

  You keep talking about the "uncaused cause". By definition the first cause does not require a cause. So no God necessary. It does not require a God because the very process of causality starts with the first cause. The first cause can spring from nothingness because it is conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause that it does not require a cause. And the first cause can be God, but it doesen't need to be. Sure, you can choose to call the most basic of quantum fluctuations God - assuming that the most fundamental propert of existence is some very basic quantum fluctuation - if you want, but that would be something that has nothing in common with the conception of God as most religions conceive it. It wouldn't be self-aware, and it wouldn't have created the Universe to serve any purpose like most religions conceive of God. As for an infinite chain of causality, I have already addressed that. If there was no first cause, then there is no God because it is a pre-requisite for God being God that he is the first cause. If there is no first cause but there is a God, then this means that God simply lacks the fundamental attribute for being God since he must be responsible for Creation for him to be God. And don't try to correct me on the Big Bang. Matter did originate with the Big Bang. There was no matter before the Big Bang because there was no before. Matter was infinitely compressed at the moment the Big Bang happened, but it also came into being at that moment. Matter is the fundamental property of reality without which time doesen't exist. So matter came into being and then time started. Matter could not have originated "before" the Big Bang because there was no before since matter creates time itself that allows for a "before".

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Swede! on October 18, 2011, 10:14:03 AM
I think we're just vessels which are tuning into some sort of direction where to go/do as in getting our "Consciousness" from somewhere . And  currently we're helping the lifeform called techonolgy to eventually take over DING DING.

Graham Hancock explains its better lol.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 18, 2011, 10:16:22 AM
 You keep talking about the "uncaused cause". By definition the first cause does not require a cause. So no God necessary. It does not require a God because the very process of causality starts with the first cause. The first cause can spring from nothingness because it is conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause that it does not require a cause. And the first cause can be God, but it doesen't need to be. Sure, you can choose to call the most basic of quantum fluctuations God - assuming that the most fundamental propert of existence is some very basic quantum fluctuation - if you want, but that would be something that has nothing in common with the conception of God as most religions conceive it. It wouldn't be self-aware, and it wouldn't have created the Universe to serve any purpose like most religions conceive of God. As for an infinite chain of causality, I have already addressed that. If there was no first cause, then there is no God because it is a pre-requisite for God being God that he is the first cause. If there is no first cause but there is a God, then this means that God simply lacks the fundamental attribute for being God since he must be responsible for Creation for him to be God. And don't try to correct me on the Big Bang. Matter did originate with the Big Bang. There was no matter before the Big Bang because there was no before. Matter was infinitely compressed at the moment the Big Bang happened, but it also came into being at that moment. Matter is the fundamental property of reality without which time doesen't exist. So matter came into being and then time started. Matter could not have originated "before" the Big Bang because there was no before since matter creates time itself that allows for a "before".

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  ha ha ha ahanahahah...this "sukmuscle" guy is obliterating "tbombz" in this discussion...,,,,,it like watching an adult beating on a toddler...


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2011, 11:31:24 AM
 You keep talking about the "uncaused cause". By definition the first cause does not require a cause. So no God necessary. It does not require a God because the very process of causality starts with the first cause. The first cause can spring from nothingness because it is conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause that it does not require a cause. And the first cause can be God, but it doesen't need to be. Sure, you can choose to call the most basic of quantum fluctuations God - assuming that the most fundamental propert of existence is some very basic quantum fluctuation - if you want, but that would be something that has nothing in common with the conception of God as most religions conceive it. It wouldn't be self-aware, and it wouldn't have created the Universe to serve any purpose like most religions conceive of God. As for an infinite chain of causality, I have already addressed that. If there was no first cause, then there is no God because it is a pre-requisite for God being God that he is the first cause. If there is no first cause but there is a God, then this means that God simply lacks the fundamental attribute for being God since he must be responsible for Creation for him to be God. And don't try to correct me on the Big Bang. Matter did originate with the Big Bang. There was no matter before the Big Bang because there was no before. Matter was infinitely compressed at the moment the Big Bang happened, but it also came into being at that moment. Matter is the fundamental property of reality without which time doesen't exist. So matter came into being and then time started. Matter could not have originated "before" the Big Bang because there was no before since matter creates time itself that allows for a "before".

SUCKMYMUSCLE

your slowly coming along.

your displaying a lakc of understanding of the big bang theory however.  what we know is that the universe is expanding outwards, based on the rate its expanding and what we know of its boundaries we use simple arithmetic to calculate that about 13.7 billion years ago the universe was in a state of extreme density and heat. at this time it started expanding, for whatever reaosn. there are theories as to why but they arent pertanent. what is pertanent is that we dont know if that dense, hot state of the universe just "appeared" out of nothing, or if it had existed for a period of time, or an eternity, before that. 

there are two possible scenarios, infinite regression and an eternal universe. or a universe with a "starting point", a "first cause", or when it was created.

science tells us that nothing happens for no reason. causality always applies. even when particles pop into existence out of no where, there was a cause.. a quantum fluctuation. we dont know yet what the cause of quantum fluctuations is. if there is one that we can decipher.

if there is indeed a "first cause", whatever that cause was, by defintion, has to be SUPERNATURAL, because it will be defying the law of causality.  if there was a supernatural first cause, its quite obvious that cause was god. as to the nature of god, if god exists, we have no idea.   and its possible no such god exists, but for that to be the case the universe and all of its potentialities have to be eternal.






Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 18, 2011, 01:10:50 PM
your slowly coming along.

  It is completely pointless debating you. I won't address your post because you just repeated verbatim your previous post and I have already addressed every point you made and you act like you have something knew by just changing the ordering of your words or using synonyms. I also suggest you go take an introductory course on cosmology and physics, as you obviously lack even basic knowledge on these subjects. I also suggest you take an introductory course on logic, as you seem to have difficulty grasping and making logical deductions on a very basic and primary level.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 18, 2011, 01:17:36 PM
  It is completely pointless debating you. I won't address your post because you just repeated verbatim your previous post and I have already addressed every point you made and you act like you have something knew by just changing the ordering of your words or using synonyms. I also suggest you go take an introductory course on cosmology and physics, as you obviously lack even basic knowledge on these subjects. I also suggest you take an introductory course on logic, as you seem to have difficulty grasping and making logical deductions on a very basic and primary level.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Dude it's clear to anyone with half a brain you crushed him utterly ,  he was in way over his head trying to ' debate ' you and he thinks he can grind the conversation down to a halt with semantics and circular reasoning and claim some half ass victory  :-\

I'll give tbombz credit for attempting too make a point and trying to elaborate on it.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 18, 2011, 01:25:42 PM
Dude it's clear to anyone with half a brain you crushed him utterly ,  he was in way over his head trying to ' debate ' you and he thinks he can grind the conversation down to a halt with semantics and circular reasoning and claim some half ass victory  :-\

I'll give tbombz credit for attempting too make a point and trying to elaborate on it.

  Thanks, man. The problem with these debates is that it is not about establishing truth but about "winning". Keeping the debate alive by appealing to semantics, tautological arguments and coming up with straw mans and attacking them is the only way to keep the debate alive and pretend like you are not losing when all the evidence and especially logic is on your side. Hulkster did that to you in the Truce Thread, and "tbombz" is doing it to me in this thread.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2011, 01:32:35 PM
um, you dont understand the big bang theory as you claim that all the matter in the universe was created during the "bang".  you dont understand the possibility of infinite regression and the eternal universe. and you dont understand that a first cause is by defintion supernatural.

 im not going in circles and im not playing games with words.

two options= eternal, uncreated universe OR a universe that was created.  no others.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: lovemonkey on October 18, 2011, 01:43:53 PM
um, you dont understand the big bang theory as you claim that all the matter in the universe was created during the "bang".  you dont understand the possibility of infinite regression and the eternal universe. and you dont understand that a first cause is by defintion supernatural.

 im not going in circles and im not playing games with words.

two options= eternal, uncreated universe OR a universe that was created.  no others.

You're just repeating the same worn out shit every single time. You've proven yourself to be absolutely clueless when it comes to any kind of science. Read a goddamn book or hundred and then come back.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on October 18, 2011, 02:16:27 PM
If we could somehow harnass the intellectual power of the contributors in this thread......


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: wavelength on October 18, 2011, 03:11:38 PM
they're both dumbasses


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2011, 04:06:26 PM
You're just repeating the same worn out shit every single time. You've proven yourself to be absolutely clueless when it comes to any kind of science. Read a goddamn book or hundred and then come back.
i keep repeating it because what im saying is fact and undebatable. if you have something of substance to contribute go ahead and do so. saying "you dont know shit" doesnt help your argument.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 18, 2011, 04:36:29 PM
All generalisations are dangerous, including this one!


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 18, 2011, 07:06:07 PM
god= a term for the creator of the universe, a diety which may or may not exist. an incomprehensible figure due to its inherent supernatural nature.

You repeated the same thing you said before. You've achieved nothing, short of admiting that the deity you claim to define is incomprehensible, and therefore undefinable...


if there was ever a condition when the universe didnt exist it would have to be located either before, or after the existence of the current universe.

There you go again, applying temporal and causal semantics when those semantics are inapplicable. Time is a property of the universe. The term "before" as we understand it is meaningless outside the universe because time as we define it is meaningless. The same goes for causality: it works within a temporal framework. Remove the framework and causality is broken since there is no time.

But it's now clear to me that you aren't just stupid - you are unwilling to even debate the issue honestly. You skip over whatever is written and vomit a cud of the crap that has just been debunked right back out in the form of a new post.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2011, 08:31:36 PM
if time cant be used then it cant be used when discussing something outside of the universe. in order for something outside of the universe to exist, the SUPERNATURAL must exist. thats the defintion of supernatural.

SO... either the supernatural exists... or we can always use time. if we can aways use time, the universe is eternal since nothing outside of it exists.

two options= eternal universe or the existence of the supernatural.

 if you cant understand that you arent trying.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 18, 2011, 08:36:55 PM
if time cant be used then it cant be used when discussing something outside of the universe. in order for something outside of the universe to exist, the SUPERNATURAL must exist. thats the defintion of supernatural.

SO... either the supernatural exists... or we can always use time. if we can aways use time, the universe is eternal since nothing outside of it exists.

two options= eternal universe or the existence of the supernatural.

 if you cant understand that you arent trying.
God paradoxically exists and doesnt at the same time. So both theories are valid. So pat yourselves on the back gentleman. We sorted this Shit.  I dont know about you, but I am going to celebrate with some ERB sent from EAVEN, AAI. Thank God for Tetrahydrocannabinol.

 ;D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2011, 08:37:43 PM
God paradoxically exists and doesnt at the same time. So both theories are valid. So pack yourselves on the back gentleman. We sorted this Shit.  I dont know about you, but I am going to celebrate with some ERB sent from EAVEN, AAI. Thank God for Tetrahydrocannabinol.

 ;D
no, either he exists or he doesnt.


enjoy your weed.  i had to quit two weeks ago.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 18, 2011, 08:41:12 PM
]
God paradoxically exists and doesnt at the same time. So both theories are valid. So pat yourselves on the back gentleman. We sorted this Shit.  I dont know about you, but I am going to celebrate with some ERB sent from EAVEN, AAI. Thank God for Tetrahydrocannabinol.

 ;D
enjoy your weed.  i had to quit two weeks ago.
[/quote  ;D
No wonder you aare being so Obtuse


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 18, 2011, 08:51:51 PM
no, either he exists or he doesnt.
Well that's what a paradox is, something that defies logic, but actually exists.  Like a bumblebee not being aerodynamically set up to fly, but does anyway.  Paradoxes dont make sense.  That's the beauty of them.  So you are both a douchebag and a decent human being all at the same time see.  Paradox.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 18, 2011, 11:23:09 PM
nice lookin weed.. i had to stop cuz it kills my motivation and i need to start working..   but when i was smoking i was getting purple buds like these



(http://weedstrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/purple-kush-2.jpeg)



for $10/gram.. 1/8th ounce for $30.. 1/4 ounce for $50... 1/2 ounce for $90


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 18, 2011, 11:56:24 PM
nice lookin weed.. i had to stop cuz it kills my motivation and i need to start working..   but when i was smoking i was getting purple buds like these



(http://weedstrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/purple-kush-2.jpeg)



for $10/gram.. 1/8th ounce for $30.. 1/4 ounce for $50... 1/2 ounce for $90
All this deep philosophical discussion, and all you need to distract a man, is a photo of a big juicy bud.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 19, 2011, 06:08:31 AM
Before we proceed on discussing bing bang theory... What is your profession tdongs, what and where do you study or graduate?

I always get frustrated when I see people who would fail on most simple math problem... Let alone more sophisticated physics who discuss things they simply CANNOT comprehend.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on October 19, 2011, 06:29:20 AM
Before we proceed on discussing bing bang theory... What is your profession tdongs, what and where do you study or graduate?

I always get frustrated when I see people who would fail on most simple math problem... Let alone more sophisticated physics who discuss things they simply CANNOT comprehend.

I'm getting the ole "you can discuss any topic but can't understand it unless you have a PhD in it" vibe here.

Lemme guess, you're almost finished with your master's in some discipline of science and already had a minor in math from your undergrad?  Or possibly a PhD candidate?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 19, 2011, 11:21:23 AM
I'm getting the ole "you can discuss any topic but can't understand it unless you have a PhD in it" vibe here.

Lemme guess, you're almost finished with your master's in some discipline of science and already had a minor in math from your undergrad?  Or possibly a PhD candidate?

No, it's "you cannot discuss scientific topic unless you have deep understanding of it". It's sophisticated math dude, you think you understand it, but in reality you just don't.

solve in real numbers

(x+y)^3 = 8z
(y+z)^3 = 8x
(z+x)^3 = 8y

Until someone proves it here I call bullshit on your discussion. Oh and it's most simple shit you can imagine, takes 15 minutes to solve max.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 19, 2011, 01:53:46 PM
Before we proceed on discussing bing bang theory... What is your profession tdongs, what and where do you study or graduate?

I always get frustrated when I see people who would fail on most simple math problem... Let alone more sophisticated physics who discuss things they simply CANNOT comprehend.
do you like apples ?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 19, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
WHOA!!!



this thread went 10 pages


big shock huh


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: lovemonkey on October 19, 2011, 02:02:22 PM
WHOA!!!



this thread went 10 pages


big shock huh

Just stfu already. Your whole passive-aggressive "these debates are dumb" schtick is getting really old.

What do you suggest? Not debating at all? Do you think some of the most important philosophical questions there is can be settled within two pages on getbig.com forums? People have a genuine interest in these discussions. If you're gonna go around trolling, at least be funny.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on October 19, 2011, 02:07:16 PM
No, it's "you cannot discuss scientific topic unless you have deep understanding of it". It's sophisticated math dude, you think you understand it, but in reality you just don't.

solve in real numbers

(x+y)^3 = 8z
(y+z)^3 = 8x
(z+x)^3 = 8y

Until someone proves it here I call bullshit on your discussion. Oh and it's most simple shit you can imagine, takes 15 minutes to solve max.

My discussion?  LOL, haven't said anything.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 19, 2011, 02:08:54 PM


What do you suggest? Not debating at all? Do you think some of the most important philosophical questions there is can be settled within two pages on getbig.com forums? People have a genuine interest in these discussions. If you're gonna go around trolling, at least be funny.


No....I'm just saying that a thread that gives all the pseudo-intellectuals on here a excuse to copy and paste there way to try and impress some other stranger is always predictable


and, it's always the same guys and I always do the same "this thing will go 10" pages thing

it's called "Schtick"- if you weren't to busy trying to impress some guy on the internet with a screenname of "BigBoneRamon" you would have recognized that


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 19, 2011, 02:11:53 PM
btw, I was right

this thing did go 10 pages



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 19, 2011, 02:17:52 PM
btw, I was right

this thing did go 10 pages



Any thread will be 10+ pages with tbombz and his circular reasoning and semantics


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: 99 Bananas on October 19, 2011, 02:19:18 PM
Nice makeup on that dude. I'd fancy getting my dick sucked by those rosy cheeks.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: dr.chimps on October 19, 2011, 02:20:53 PM
Any thread will be 10+ pages with tbombz and his circular reasoning and semantics
Says the guy who's half of a Biblical-length thread.    ;D


/dives into bomb shelter


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on October 19, 2011, 02:30:31 PM
Says the guy who's half of a Biblical-length thread.    ;D


/dives into bomb shelter

touchť  ;D



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 19, 2011, 04:30:19 PM
Before we proceed on discussing bing bang theory... What is your profession tdongs, what and where do you study or graduate?

I always get frustrated when I see people who would fail on most simple math problem... Let alone more sophisticated physics who discuss things they simply CANNOT comprehend.
A father received yet another letter from his son asking for money. The father
was tired of doling out the cash. So, instead of money, the father sent the following
addition problem for his son to solve.

        S E N D
    +  M O R E
      -----------
     M O N E Y

He said that if his son could figure out which digit each of the letters stood for, he would send his son another installment of cash.

What does each letter represent to make this addition problem correct?

aNSWER THIS THEN WE CAN tALK!


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 19, 2011, 04:38:46 PM
  "sukmuscle" completely monopolized the debate and destroyed everyone...,,,I would delete my account in the place of tbombz and go away. dude has not half the intelligence of sukmuscle....


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 19, 2011, 07:26:12 PM
No, it's "you cannot discuss scientific topic unless you have deep understanding of it". It's sophisticated math dude, you think you understand it, but in reality you just don't.

solve in real numbers

(x+y)^3 = 8z
(y+z)^3 = 8x
(z+x)^3 = 8y

Until someone proves it here I call bullshit on your discussion. Oh and it's most simple shit you can imagine, takes 15 minutes to solve max.

That's trivial in the reals. The only solutions in ℝ (also in ℤ) are { x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 }, { x = 1, y = 1, z = 1 } and { x = -1, y = -1, z = -1 }. Yawn.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 19, 2011, 09:05:00 PM
Any thread will be 10+ pages with tbombz and his circular reasoning and semantics
no circular reasoning and no semantics, just me showing arrogant atheists how misguided they are with basic logic


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 19, 2011, 10:05:41 PM
no circular reasoning and no semantics, just me showing arrogant atheists how misguided they are with basic logic

  lololololololooloolololo looloollolollol

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 19, 2011, 10:54:25 PM
 lololololololooloolololo looloollolollol

SUCKMYMUSCLE
the funny thing about most of your ideas on this subject is that they are arguments in support of a diety and you apparently dont know it.  like the thing you have said numerous times, that the universe is built on concepts at its most fundamental level. what are concepts? mental constructs..   :D  ;)  and you asserting there must be a first, uncaused cause... not true, but if there was a first cause it would obviously be god.  


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 19, 2011, 11:47:24 PM
the funny thing about most of your ideas on this subject is that they are arguments in support of a diety and you apparently dont know it.  like the thing you have said numerous times, that the universe is built on concepts at its most fundamental level. what are concepts? mental constructs..   :D  ;)  and you asserting there must be a first, uncaused cause... not true, but if there was a first cause it would obviously be god.  

  Ok, I had promised that I wouldn't address your ramblings full of semantic mistatements, logical fallacies and ex nihilo(actually, from the depth of your imagination) (mis)evidence to support your retarded arguments, but since you now have decided to make a straw man of one of my arguments and use it to attack me, I will explain this shit to you one last time and show my argument is nothing of what you claim and in no way is an argument for the support of God. Here it goes:

  There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallacy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it. This is an a priori conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause. So, the argument boils down to whether something can spring from nothing or not. It doesen't matter if the first cause was the Big Bang or something else like quantum fluctuations. In the latter case if would be an occurence simultaneous to the appearance of matter since time cannot exist without it. I am digressing. The point is that the first cause can spring from nothingness, because the first cause is not only the first cause, but it also creates the very process of causality. This is a axiomatic, semantic and tautological condition of any logical(axiomatic) derived system, which includes our Universe. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand. In mathematics, you have the number 1(quantity) and the number zero(nothingness) from which all mathematics derive. If you accept that there is something, then you also accept that there is nothing, and all more complex logical derivations arrive from that(calculus, algebra, etc). Likewise, since there was a first cause, you can say that it is something that stands in polar opposition to nothingness. Hence, the first cause can come forth from nothingness simply by being the logical antagonist of it. Hence, no God needed. Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything. I find it hard because this would be a very complex thing and the general rule in the Universe is that complexity comes from simplicity. But do I rule out God? No, I just find it extremely unlikely. The thing is that no God is needed as the first cause, no supernatural capacity that cannot be logically defined and thus understood. If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation standing in opposition to absolute nothingness(which can only exist as a concept), you can choose to call that God, but it wouldn't have any of the attributes of God, such as being self-aware and having a purpose in creation.

  Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility. Since quantum fluctuations do not occure in linear time - because linear time only exists where there is matter - if quantum fluctuations turn out to be responsible for all of reality you could say that there was no first cause, since the word "first" implies time, which doesen't exist in the quantum field. So an Universe without a first cause. In this case, there certainly is no God since there is no first cause, because the most important attribute of God is being the first cause. Hence an infinite time loop means that there is no God. There could be a being more powerful than any conception we might have of God, but this being wouldn't be God since it wouldn't be the first cause.

  Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely miscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 19, 2011, 11:52:39 PM
 Ok, I had promised that I wouldn't address your ramblings full of semantic mistatements, logical fallacies and ex nihilo(actually, from the depth of your imagination) (mis)evidence to support your retarded arguments, but since you now have decided to make a straw man of one of my arguments and use it to attack me, I will explain this shit to you one last time and show my argument is nothing of what you claim and in no way is an argument for the support of God. Here is goes:

  There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallcy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it. This is an a priori conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause. So, the argument boils down to whether something can spring from nothing or not. It doesen't matter if the first cause was the Big Bang or something that else like quantum fluctuations. In the latter case if would be an occurence simultaneous to the appearance of matter since time cannot exist without it. I am digressing. The point is that the first cause can spring from nothingness, because the first cause is not only the first cause, but it also creates the very process of causality. This is a axiomatic, semantic and tautological condition of any logical(axiomatic) derived system, which includes our Universe. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand. In mathematics, you have the number 1(quantity) and the number zero(nothingness) from which all mathematics derive. If you accept that there is something, then you also accept that there is nothing, and all more complex logical derivations arrive from that(calculus, algebra, etc). Likewise, since there was a first cause, you can say that it is something that stands in polar opposition to nothingness. Hence, the first cause can come forth from nothingness simply by being the logical antagonist of it. Hence, no God needed. Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything. I find it hard because this would be very complex thing and the general rule in the Universe is that complexity comes from simplicity. But do I rule out God? No, I just find it extremely unlikely. The thing is that no God is needed as the first cause, no supernatural capacity that cannot be logically defined and thus understood. If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation standing in opposition to absolute nothingness(which can only exist as a concept), you can choose to call that God, but it wouldn't have any of the attributes of God, such as being self-aware and having a purpose in creation.

  Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility. Since quantum fluctuations do not occure in linear time - because linear time only exists where there is matter - if quantum fluctuations turn out to be responsible for all of reality you could say that there was no first cause, since the word "first" implies time, which doesen't exist in the quantum field. So an Universe without a first cause. In this case, there certainly is no God since there is no first cause, because the most important attribute of God is being the first cause. Hence an infinite time loop means that there is no God. There could be a being more powerful than any conception we might have of God, but this being wouldn't be God since it wouldn't be the first cause.

  Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely iscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  Holy fuck.....run "tbombz", run...run while you can...run, run, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 20, 2011, 12:22:19 AM
That's trivial in the reals. The only solutions in ℝ (also in ℤ) are { x = 0, y = 0, z = 0 }, { x = 1, y = 1, z = 1 } and { x = -1, y = -1, z = -1 }. Yawn.

You haven't solved it. You don't even know that you have to prove that those are only solutions? Jesus, where did you learn math?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 20, 2011, 12:48:02 AM
A father received yet another letter from his son asking for money. The father
was tired of doling out the cash. So, instead of money, the father sent the following
addition problem for his son to solve.

        S E N D
    +  M O R E
      -----------
     M O N E Y

He said that if his son could figure out which digit each of the letters stood for, he would send his son another installment of cash.

What does each letter represent to make this addition problem correct?

aNSWER THIS THEN WE CAN tALK!

9000 + 1000 = 10000
9001 + 1000 = 10001
9002 + 1000 = 10002
9003 + 1000 = 10003
9004 + 1000 = 10004
9005 + 1000 = 10005
9006 + 1000 = 10006
9007 + 1000 = 10007
9008 + 1000 = 10008
9009 + 1000 = 10009
9010 + 1090 = 10100
9011 + 1090 = 10101
9012 + 1090 = 10102
9013 + 1090 = 10103
9014 + 1090 = 10104
9015 + 1090 = 10105
9016 + 1090 = 10106
9017 + 1090 = 10107
9018 + 1090 = 10108
9019 + 1090 = 10109
9110 + 1001 = 10111
9111 + 1001 = 10112
9112 + 1001 = 10113
9113 + 1001 = 10114
9114 + 1001 = 10115
9115 + 1001 = 10116
9116 + 1001 = 10117
9117 + 1001 = 10118
9118 + 1001 = 10119
9120 + 1091 = 10211
9121 + 1091 = 10212
9122 + 1091 = 10213
9123 + 1091 = 10214
9124 + 1091 = 10215
9125 + 1091 = 10216
9126 + 1091 = 10217
9127 + 1091 = 10218
9128 + 1091 = 10219
9129 + 1081 = 10210
9220 + 1002 = 10222
9221 + 1002 = 10223
9222 + 1002 = 10224
9223 + 1002 = 10225
9224 + 1002 = 10226
9225 + 1002 = 10227
9226 + 1002 = 10228
9227 + 1002 = 10229
9230 + 1092 = 10322
9231 + 1092 = 10323
9232 + 1092 = 10324
9233 + 1092 = 10325
9234 + 1092 = 10326
9235 + 1092 = 10327
9236 + 1092 = 10328
9237 + 1092 = 10329
9238 + 1082 = 10320
9239 + 1082 = 10321
9330 + 1003 = 10333
9331 + 1003 = 10334
9332 + 1003 = 10335
9333 + 1003 = 10336
9334 + 1003 = 10337
9335 + 1003 = 10338
9336 + 1003 = 10339
9340 + 1093 = 10433
9341 + 1093 = 10434
9342 + 1093 = 10435
9343 + 1093 = 10436
9344 + 1093 = 10437
9345 + 1093 = 10438
9346 + 1093 = 10439
9347 + 1083 = 10430
9348 + 1083 = 10431
9349 + 1083 = 10432
9440 + 1004 = 10444
9441 + 1004 = 10445
9442 + 1004 = 10446
9443 + 1004 = 10447
9444 + 1004 = 10448
9445 + 1004 = 10449
9450 + 1094 = 10544
9451 + 1094 = 10545
9452 + 1094 = 10546
9453 + 1094 = 10547
9454 + 1094 = 10548
9455 + 1094 = 10549
9456 + 1084 = 10540
9457 + 1084 = 10541
9458 + 1084 = 10542
9459 + 1084 = 10543
9550 + 1005 = 10555
9551 + 1005 = 10556
9552 + 1005 = 10557
9553 + 1005 = 10558
9554 + 1005 = 10559
9560 + 1095 = 10655
9561 + 1095 = 10656
9562 + 1095 = 10657
9563 + 1095 = 10658
9564 + 1095 = 10659
9565 + 1085 = 10650
9566 + 1085 = 10651
9567 + 1085 = 10652
9568 + 1085 = 10653
9569 + 1085 = 10654
9660 + 1006 = 10666
9661 + 1006 = 10667
9662 + 1006 = 10668
9663 + 1006 = 10669
9670 + 1096 = 10766
9671 + 1096 = 10767
9672 + 1096 = 10768
9673 + 1096 = 10769
9674 + 1086 = 10760
9675 + 1086 = 10761
9676 + 1086 = 10762
9677 + 1086 = 10763
9678 + 1086 = 10764
9679 + 1086 = 10765
9770 + 1007 = 10777
9771 + 1007 = 10778
9772 + 1007 = 10779
9780 + 1097 = 10877
9781 + 1097 = 10878
9782 + 1097 = 10879
9783 + 1087 = 10870
9784 + 1087 = 10871
9785 + 1087 = 10872
9786 + 1087 = 10873
9787 + 1087 = 10874
9788 + 1087 = 10875
9789 + 1087 = 10876
9880 + 1008 = 10888
9881 + 1008 = 10889
9890 + 1098 = 10988
9891 + 1098 = 10989
9892 + 1088 = 10980
9893 + 1088 = 10981
9894 + 1088 = 10982
9895 + 1088 = 10983
9896 + 1088 = 10984
9897 + 1088 = 10985
9898 + 1088 = 10986
9899 + 1088 = 10987
9900 + 1199 = 11099
9901 + 1189 = 11090
9902 + 1189 = 11091
9903 + 1189 = 11092
9904 + 1189 = 11093
9905 + 1189 = 11094
9906 + 1189 = 11095
9907 + 1189 = 11096
9908 + 1189 = 11097
9909 + 1189 = 11098
9990 + 1009 = 10999


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 20, 2011, 01:49:34 AM
A father received yet another letter from his son asking for money. The father
was tired of doling out the cash. So, instead of money, the father sent the following
addition problem for his son to solve.

        S E N D
    +  M O R E
      -----------
     M O N E Y

He said that if his son could figure out which digit each of the letters stood for, he would send his son another installment of cash.

What does each letter represent to make this addition problem correct?

Answer: S = 9, E = 5, N = 6, D = 7, M = 1, O = 0, R = 8, Y = 2


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 20, 2011, 02:04:18 AM
Answer: S = 9, E = 5, N = 6, D = 7, M = 1, O = 0, R = 8, Y = 2

Actually although I made simple mistake this is not the only solution...

9000 + 1000 = 10000
9001 + 1000 = 10001
9002 + 1000 = 10002
9003 + 1000 = 10003
9004 + 1000 = 10004
9005 + 1000 = 10005
9006 + 1000 = 10006
9007 + 1000 = 10007
9008 + 1000 = 10008
9009 + 1000 = 10009
9010 + 1090 = 10100
9011 + 1090 = 10101
9012 + 1090 = 10102
9013 + 1090 = 10103
9014 + 1090 = 10104
9015 + 1090 = 10105
9016 + 1090 = 10106
9017 + 1090 = 10107
9018 + 1090 = 10108
9019 + 1090 = 10109
9110 + 1001 = 10111
9111 + 1001 = 10112
9112 + 1001 = 10113
9113 + 1001 = 10114
9114 + 1001 = 10115
9115 + 1001 = 10116
9116 + 1001 = 10117
9117 + 1001 = 10118
9118 + 1001 = 10119
9120 + 1091 = 10211
9121 + 1091 = 10212
9122 + 1091 = 10213
9123 + 1091 = 10214
9124 + 1091 = 10215
9125 + 1091 = 10216
9126 + 1091 = 10217
9127 + 1091 = 10218
9128 + 1091 = 10219
9129 + 1081 = 10210
9220 + 1002 = 10222
9221 + 1002 = 10223
9222 + 1002 = 10224
9223 + 1002 = 10225
9224 + 1002 = 10226
9225 + 1002 = 10227
9226 + 1002 = 10228
9227 + 1002 = 10229
9230 + 1092 = 10322
9231 + 1092 = 10323
9232 + 1092 = 10324
9233 + 1092 = 10325
9234 + 1092 = 10326
9235 + 1092 = 10327
9236 + 1092 = 10328
9237 + 1092 = 10329
9238 + 1082 = 10320
9239 + 1082 = 10321
9330 + 1003 = 10333
9331 + 1003 = 10334
9332 + 1003 = 10335
9333 + 1003 = 10336
9334 + 1003 = 10337
9335 + 1003 = 10338
9336 + 1003 = 10339
9340 + 1093 = 10433
9341 + 1093 = 10434
9342 + 1093 = 10435
9343 + 1093 = 10436
9344 + 1093 = 10437
9345 + 1093 = 10438
9346 + 1093 = 10439
9347 + 1083 = 10430
9348 + 1083 = 10431
9349 + 1083 = 10432
9440 + 1004 = 10444
9441 + 1004 = 10445
9442 + 1004 = 10446
9443 + 1004 = 10447
9444 + 1004 = 10448
9445 + 1004 = 10449
9450 + 1094 = 10544
9451 + 1094 = 10545
9452 + 1094 = 10546
9453 + 1094 = 10547
9454 + 1094 = 10548
9455 + 1094 = 10549
9456 + 1084 = 10540
9457 + 1084 = 10541
9458 + 1084 = 10542
9459 + 1084 = 10543
9550 + 1005 = 10555
9551 + 1005 = 10556
9552 + 1005 = 10557
9553 + 1005 = 10558
9554 + 1005 = 10559
9560 + 1095 = 10655
9561 + 1095 = 10656
9562 + 1095 = 10657
9563 + 1095 = 10658
9564 + 1095 = 10659
9565 + 1085 = 10650
9566 + 1085 = 10651
9567 + 1085 = 10652
9568 + 1085 = 10653
9569 + 1085 = 10654
9660 + 1006 = 10666
9661 + 1006 = 10667
9662 + 1006 = 10668
9663 + 1006 = 10669
9670 + 1096 = 10766
9671 + 1096 = 10767
9672 + 1096 = 10768
9673 + 1096 = 10769
9674 + 1086 = 10760
9675 + 1086 = 10761
9676 + 1086 = 10762
9677 + 1086 = 10763
9678 + 1086 = 10764
9679 + 1086 = 10765
9770 + 1007 = 10777
9771 + 1007 = 10778
9772 + 1007 = 10779
9780 + 1097 = 10877
9781 + 1097 = 10878
9782 + 1097 = 10879
9783 + 1087 = 10870
9784 + 1087 = 10871
9785 + 1087 = 10872
9786 + 1087 = 10873
9787 + 1087 = 10874
9788 + 1087 = 10875
9789 + 1087 = 10876
9880 + 1008 = 10888
9881 + 1008 = 10889
9890 + 1098 = 10988
9891 + 1098 = 10989
9892 + 1088 = 10980
9893 + 1088 = 10981
9894 + 1088 = 10982
9895 + 1088 = 10983
9896 + 1088 = 10984
9897 + 1088 = 10985
9898 + 1088 = 10986
9899 + 1088 = 10987
9900 + 1199 = 11099
9901 + 1189 = 11090
9902 + 1189 = 11091
9903 + 1189 = 11092
9904 + 1189 = 11093
9905 + 1189 = 11094
9906 + 1189 = 11095
9907 + 1189 = 11096
9908 + 1189 = 11097
9909 + 1189 = 11098
9990 + 1009 = 10999

You never said anywhere that those letters represent distinct digits.

Simple shit and everything it takes is checking every possible solution. 19 lines of code.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: johnnynoname on October 20, 2011, 04:38:14 AM
I got flamed on this thread about how I'm a asshole for pointing out that these threads always turn into a "intellectual dick measuring, copy/paste fest"





so, how am i a asshole again?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on October 20, 2011, 05:31:23 AM
no circular reasoning and no semantics, just me showing arrogant atheists how misguided they are with basic logic

Ahaha... that's so funny. At least you're good for something: making people laugh.


You haven't solved it. You don't even know that you have to prove that those are only solutions? Jesus, where did you learn math?

Oh noes. Some buffoon on the Interwebs has challenged my math skills. Time to tear my graduate degree in mathematics to shreds and go cry in the corner.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 20, 2011, 06:22:56 AM
A father received yet another letter from his son asking for money. The father
was tired of doling out the cash. So, instead of money, the father sent the following
addition problem for his son to solve.

        S E N D
    +  M O R E
      -----------
     M O N E Y

He said that if his son could figure out which digit each of the letters stood for, he would send his son another installment of cash.

What does each letter represent to make this addition problem correct?

aNSWER THIS THEN WE CAN tALK!
Actually although I made simple mistake this is not the only solution...

9000 + 1000 = 10000
9001 + 1000 = 10001
9002 + 1000 = 10002
9003 + 1000 = 10003
9004 + 1000 = 10004
9005 + 1000 = 10005
9006 + 1000 = 10006
9007 + 1000 = 10007
9008 + 1000 = 10008
9009 + 1000 = 10009
9010 + 1090 = 10100
9011 + 1090 = 10101
9012 + 1090 = 10102
9013 + 1090 = 10103
9014 + 1090 = 10104
9015 + 1090 = 10105
9016 + 1090 = 10106
9017 + 1090 = 10107
9018 + 1090 = 10108
9019 + 1090 = 10109
9110 + 1001 = 10111
9111 + 1001 = 10112
9112 + 1001 = 10113
9113 + 1001 = 10114
9114 + 1001 = 10115
9115 + 1001 = 10116
9116 + 1001 = 10117
9117 + 1001 = 10118
9118 + 1001 = 10119
9120 + 1091 = 10211
9121 + 1091 = 10212
9122 + 1091 = 10213
9123 + 1091 = 10214
9124 + 1091 = 10215
9125 + 1091 = 10216
9126 + 1091 = 10217
9127 + 1091 = 10218
9128 + 1091 = 10219
9129 + 1081 = 10210
9220 + 1002 = 10222
9221 + 1002 = 10223
9222 + 1002 = 10224
9223 + 1002 = 10225
9224 + 1002 = 10226
9225 + 1002 = 10227
9226 + 1002 = 10228
9227 + 1002 = 10229
9230 + 1092 = 10322
9231 + 1092 = 10323
9232 + 1092 = 10324
9233 + 1092 = 10325
9234 + 1092 = 10326
9235 + 1092 = 10327
9236 + 1092 = 10328
9237 + 1092 = 10329
9238 + 1082 = 10320
9239 + 1082 = 10321
9330 + 1003 = 10333
9331 + 1003 = 10334
9332 + 1003 = 10335
9333 + 1003 = 10336
9334 + 1003 = 10337
9335 + 1003 = 10338
9336 + 1003 = 10339
9340 + 1093 = 10433
9341 + 1093 = 10434
9342 + 1093 = 10435
9343 + 1093 = 10436
9344 + 1093 = 10437
9345 + 1093 = 10438
9346 + 1093 = 10439
9347 + 1083 = 10430
9348 + 1083 = 10431
9349 + 1083 = 10432
9440 + 1004 = 10444
9441 + 1004 = 10445
9442 + 1004 = 10446
9443 + 1004 = 10447
9444 + 1004 = 10448
9445 + 1004 = 10449
9450 + 1094 = 10544
9451 + 1094 = 10545
9452 + 1094 = 10546
9453 + 1094 = 10547
9454 + 1094 = 10548
9455 + 1094 = 10549
9456 + 1084 = 10540
9457 + 1084 = 10541
9458 + 1084 = 10542
9459 + 1084 = 10543
9550 + 1005 = 10555
9551 + 1005 = 10556
9552 + 1005 = 10557
9553 + 1005 = 10558
9554 + 1005 = 10559
9560 + 1095 = 10655
9561 + 1095 = 10656
9562 + 1095 = 10657
9563 + 1095 = 10658
9564 + 1095 = 10659
9565 + 1085 = 10650
9566 + 1085 = 10651
9567 + 1085 = 10652
9568 + 1085 = 10653
9569 + 1085 = 10654
9660 + 1006 = 10666
9661 + 1006 = 10667
9662 + 1006 = 10668
9663 + 1006 = 10669
9670 + 1096 = 10766
9671 + 1096 = 10767
9672 + 1096 = 10768
9673 + 1096 = 10769
9674 + 1086 = 10760
9675 + 1086 = 10761
9676 + 1086 = 10762
9677 + 1086 = 10763
9678 + 1086 = 10764
9679 + 1086 = 10765
9770 + 1007 = 10777
9771 + 1007 = 10778
9772 + 1007 = 10779
9780 + 1097 = 10877
9781 + 1097 = 10878
9782 + 1097 = 10879
9783 + 1087 = 10870
9784 + 1087 = 10871
9785 + 1087 = 10872
9786 + 1087 = 10873
9787 + 1087 = 10874
9788 + 1087 = 10875
9789 + 1087 = 10876
9880 + 1008 = 10888
9881 + 1008 = 10889
9890 + 1098 = 10988
9891 + 1098 = 10989
9892 + 1088 = 10980
9893 + 1088 = 10981
9894 + 1088 = 10982
9895 + 1088 = 10983
9896 + 1088 = 10984
9897 + 1088 = 10985
9898 + 1088 = 10986
9899 + 1088 = 10987
9900 + 1199 = 11099
9901 + 1189 = 11090
9902 + 1189 = 11091
9903 + 1189 = 11092
9904 + 1189 = 11093
9905 + 1189 = 11094
9906 + 1189 = 11095
9907 + 1189 = 11096
9908 + 1189 = 11097
9909 + 1189 = 11098
9990 + 1009 = 10999

You never said anywhere that those letters represent distinct digits.

Simple shit and everything it takes is checking every possible solution. 19 lines of code.
That is funny, I am unsure what problem you were solving.  ;D Well it was an addition problem, what else could the letters represent: Anyway here are the steps taken to reach answer.You figure this out with a little trial and error and a smattering of reasoning things out. Youíre pretty sure that the letter M represents 1, because itís the carryover from adding the number that M represents to the number that S epresents. If M represents 1, then S must represent 8 or 9 in order for the sum to be large enough to have a carryover. Work your way backward, trying out different digits for the different letters until you find the solution.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on October 20, 2011, 06:30:28 AM
 

  There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallacy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it.

an uncaused cause is impossible within the laws of physics, hence someting supernatural is required. it is not that god caused the first cause, it is that god IS the first cause. if there was a first cause.

 Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything.

wait, i though you said this was a logical fallacy? now its a possibility ?   ;D


If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation

what caused the quantum fluctuation ?  ;)


  Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility.


your back tracking now. in your original post you said that existence demanded a first cause.  ;D

  Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely miscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.

you have said multiple times that existence boils down to conceptual designs. this explanation makes much more sense.

SUCKMYMUSCLE



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 20, 2011, 06:36:00 AM
That is funny, I am unsure what problem you were solving.  ;D Well it was an addition problem, what else could the letters represent: Anyway here are the steps taken to reach answer.You figure this out with a little trial and error and a smattering of reasoning things out. Youíre pretty sure that the letter M represents 1, because itís the carryover from adding the number that M represents to the number that S epresents. If M represents 1, then S must represent 8 or 9 in order for the sum to be large enough to have a carryover. Work your way backward, trying out different digits for the different letters until you find the solution.

There is no word even implying the fact that digits are pairwise distinct. Of course you could work this backwards, but since there is finite number of possibilites much faster way was just checking them all automatically via computer.

I'm really embarassed by the fact that you provide easy and brainless shit like this here. With enough time average polish 10 year old can solve shit like this...


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 20, 2011, 06:38:31 AM
Ahaha... that's so funny. At least you're good for something: making people laugh.


Oh noes. Some buffoon on the Interwebs has challenged my math skills. Time to tear my graduate degree in mathematics to shreds and go cry in the corner.

I'm not challenging you. As a matter of fact I'm stating the obvious - you have mathmatical approach of a polish 10 year old. Smarter 14 year old know arleady that when solving equation/set of equation telling solution is not enough, you have to know it's every possible solution and prove it...


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 20, 2011, 08:06:34 AM

an uncaused cause is impossible within the laws of physics, hence someting supernatural is required. it is not that god caused the first cause, it is that god IS the first cause. if there was a first cause.


wait, i though you said this was a logical fallacy? now its a possibility ?    







your back tracking now. in your original post you said that existence demanded a first cause.  


you have said multiple times that existence boils down to conceptual designs. this explanation makes much more sense

  holy fuck....I think sukmuscle should report you for trolling...this can only be trolling because no one is this dumb.,,,,, :-\ for the upteenth time you quoted all the stupid points you made in your previous post and misenterpreted what he said.......can you read ??? ??? ??? ??? ???


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: lovemonkey on October 20, 2011, 08:58:10 AM
I got flamed on this thread about how I'm a asshole for pointing out that these threads always turn into a "intellectual dick measuring, copy/paste fest"





so, how am i a asshole again?

Because it's your personal opinion, it contributes nothing to the discussion and it got old a long time ago.

You're just passive-aggressively talking shit about people not buying in to the idea of 'god'.. you've said yourself you believe in a deity if I'm not mistaken. Apparently you're more comfortable talking shit than actually joining the discussion, and that's why you're a douche. Apparently the discussion is really lame and boring but at the same time you can't fucking keep your guido ass away from it and you have the nerve to complain.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 20, 2011, 09:23:30 AM
 Ok, I had promised that I wouldn't address your ramblings full of semantic mistatements, logical fallacies and ex nihilo(actually, from the depth of your imagination) (mis)evidence to support your retarded arguments, but since you now have decided to make a straw man of one of my arguments and use it to attack me, I will explain this shit to you one last time and show my argument is nothing of what you claim and in no way is an argument for the support of God. Here it goes:

  There are only two possibilities here: either there is a first cause or there isn't. Saying that the first cause must be caused by God is a logical fallacy, since the first cause, as it is defined, can not have any cause that precedes it. This is an a priori conditione sine qua non for it to be the first cause. So, the argument boils down to whether something can spring from nothing or not. It doesen't matter if the first cause was the Big Bang or something else like quantum fluctuations. In the latter case if would be an occurence simultaneous to the appearance of matter since time cannot exist without it. I am digressing. The point is that the first cause can spring from nothingness, because the first cause is not only the first cause, but it also creates the very process of causality. This is a axiomatic, semantic and tautological condition of any logical(axiomatic) derived system, which includes our Universe. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand. In mathematics, you have the number 1(quantity) and the number zero(nothingness) from which all mathematics derive. If you accept that there is something, then you also accept that there is nothing, and all more complex logical derivations arrive from that(calculus, algebra, etc). Likewise, since there was a first cause, you can say that it is something that stands in polar opposition to nothingness. Hence, the first cause can come forth from nothingness simply by being the logical antagonist of it. Hence, no God needed. Now, is it possible that God was the first cause? Sure. Maybe there was this super-magic being at the beggining which created everything. I find it hard because this would be a very complex thing and the general rule in the Universe is that complexity comes from simplicity. But do I rule out God? No, I just find it extremely unlikely. The thing is that no God is needed as the first cause, no supernatural capacity that cannot be logically defined and thus understood. If the first cause turns out to be the most basic quantum fluctuation standing in opposition to absolute nothingness(which can only exist as a concept), you can choose to call that God, but it wouldn't have any of the attributes of God, such as being self-aware and having a purpose in creation.

  Now, the other possibility is for there to never have been a first cause, which is a real possibility. Since quantum fluctuations do not occure in linear time - because linear time only exists where there is matter - if quantum fluctuations turn out to be responsible for all of reality you could say that there was no first cause, since the word "first" implies time, which doesen't exist in the quantum field. So an Universe without a first cause. In this case, there certainly is no God since there is no first cause, because the most important attribute of God is being the first cause. Hence an infinite time loop means that there is no God. There could be a being more powerful than any conception we might have of God, but this being wouldn't be God since it wouldn't be the first cause.

  Finally, what I said about the building blocks of reality being close to thoughts. You completely miscontrued what I said. You created a straw man and attacked it. What I meant is that, when you dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the ultimate substrate of reality, it comes closer and closer to being a pure abstraction, and thus more similar and similar to our thoughts. This doesen't mean that there is an intelligence behind everything. What I meant is that our minds are incapable of elucidating what the ultimate substrate of reality is because we base our thoughts having as the base our physical and sensorial Universe, and a pure abstraction is difficult for us to define within the confines of our thinking and vocabulary which is used to describe a tangible Universe to our senses. Kant said in his "Critique Of Pure Reason" how impossible it is to define the "thing in itself". It had nothing to do with saying that the ultimate substrate of reality are the thoughts of God, which is what you probably read. This is more an issue of philosophy and semantics than physics.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  I said it before and I'm saying again,,,...just compare this to the stupid shit "tbombz" writes and youll understand....."bombz' has not even half the intelligence of sukmuscle, not even the half of it,,,,it's like watching an adult spanking a toddler,,..


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: suckmymuscle on October 20, 2011, 03:46:35 PM
  I think "Tbombz" should stick to anal deep tissue massage theory. At that, he is a master. At anything involving a complexity superior to what a child of primary school age can deal with and that doesen't involve men's assholes, he's a loser.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 21, 2011, 06:24:56 AM
 I said it before and I'm saying again,,,...just compare this to the stupid shit "tbombz" writes and youll understand....."bombz' has not even half the intelligence of sukmuscle, not even the half of it,,,,it's like watching an adult spanking a toddler,,..

Suckmymuscle is an idiot as well, he just sounds intelligent.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 21, 2011, 06:26:49 AM
Suckmymuscle is an idiot as well, he just sounds intelligent.
Deceiver is an Idiot as well, he just sounds out his words so he can spell them   :o


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on October 21, 2011, 06:30:28 AM
If we could somehow harnass the intellectual power of the contributors in this thread......


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: kyomu on October 21, 2011, 06:57:38 AM
Science cant prove everything because of the defect of our conciousness.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 21, 2011, 07:02:44 AM
I cant prove anything because of the defect in my conciousness.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 21, 2011, 07:07:10 AM
Science cant prove everything because of the defect of our conciousness.

THIS.

You should really invest in SERIOUS education. Take philosophy of science classes, you really lack basic understanding of what is natural science. I dunno, but in Europe educated mature people know things like that and approach problems in more formal, systematic way... 50% of you write deosn't make any sense, 40% makes sense but reveals your complete ignorance  and the rest is just breaking through open door.

E-kul seriously, you shouldn't write anything more. All you can do is throw pathetic puzzles (and fail to write them strictly enough so there's no room for interpretation) that can be solved by 12 year old who know how to write code in fucking Pascal.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: kyomu on October 21, 2011, 07:10:38 AM

I cant know presence. I cant know the things happen at my right side and left side at a time. I cant see and hear because of my prejudice. I cant know because..........

The quantum theory


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 21, 2011, 07:26:44 AM
I cant know presence. I cant know the things happen at my right side and left side at a time. I cant see and hear because of my prejudice. I cant know because..........

The quantum theory

Yeah, do you know what is MOST funny about people like e-kul and suckmymuscle? They talk about science, they write what science can do and what it can't yet they

 - NEVER DID SCIENCE
 - NEVER SEEN SCIENCE IN ACTION
 - NEVER READ AND UNDERSTOOD SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN MATH, PHYSICS OR COMPUTER SCIENCE
 - NEVER EVEN DID ANY MATHMATICAL PROOF OF ANYTHING
 - NEVER STUDIED ANYTHING SERIOUS

You morons just live in illusion of understanding brought to you by brainwashers like "New Scientist" :D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: kyomu on October 21, 2011, 07:33:06 AM
Yeah, do you know what is MOST funny about people like e-kul and suckmymuscle? They talk about science, they write what science can do and what it can't yet they

 - NEVER DID SCIENCE
 - NEVER SEEN SCIENCE IN ACTION
 - NEVER READ AND UNDERSTOOD SCIENTIFIC PAPER IN MATH, PHYSICS OR COMPUTER SCIENCE
 - NEVER EVEN DID ANY MATHMATICAL PROOF OF ANYTHING
 - NEVER STUDIED ANYTHING SERIOUS

You morons just live in illusion of understanding brought to you by brainwashers like "New Scientist" :D
Actualy thats true. I have many books about quantum theory and, ironicaly, all of those scientists suspect for "science". ;D
Those who didnt read that much are still believeing that the science has all mighty power to resolve anything.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 21, 2011, 09:24:18 AM
Suckmymuscle is an idiot as well, he just sounds intelligent.

  no, I dont think so....people who want to sound intelligent get in over their heads...,,,this dude keeps his arguments logically consistent even when argument gets complex,,,....he's not faking his smarts...he's really smart.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 21, 2011, 02:04:07 PM
 no, I dont think so....people who want to sound intelligent get in over their heads...,,,this dude keeps his arguments logically consistent even when argument gets complex,,,....he's not faking his smarts...he's really smart.

If he was at least clever he would have solved my problem from previous pages by now. He's just wannabe.

And no, it's nothing complex. It's fucking simple shit shitloads of people I know can solve in 10 minutes, I solved it without even fucking pen just looking at it.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: CigaretteMan on October 21, 2011, 07:30:17 PM
If he was at least clever he would have solved my problem from previous pages by now. He's just wannabe.

And no, it's nothing complex. It's fucking simple shit shitloads of people I know can solve in 10 minutes, I solved it without even fucking pen just looking at it.

  your problem any child could solve......just because someone has no interest in solving not mean that he can't...,,.,,,this is like saying that because Andrew Wiles never solved a sudoku problem that he couldn't...,,,lack of interest and lack of capacity are different things..


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 21, 2011, 07:38:48 PM
E-kul seriously, you shouldn't write anything more. All you can do is throw pathetic puzzles (and fail to write them strictly enough so there's no room for interpretation) that can be solved by 12 year old who know how to write code in fucking Pascal.
Sorry dude, I just dont take it all too seriously.  :-*


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: lovemonkey on October 22, 2011, 05:41:28 AM
If he was at least clever he would have solved my problem from previous pages by now. He's just wannabe.

And no, it's nothing complex. It's fucking simple shit shitloads of people I know can solve in 10 minutes, I solved it without even fucking pen just looking at it.

What is it with polish people and anger issues..? Why does everything have to be a dick-measuring contest?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Devon97 on October 22, 2011, 05:50:16 AM
Dawkins should not even debate O'reilly. Oreilly is a total moron and totally get destroyed whenever he tries to debate someone like Dawkins.

YOu do realize he has the top rated cable news program in the country in the last ohhh.... 10 years! Or is it 8 years? I forget.

Not bad days work for a "fair & balanced" news program in a far left liberal nation. Eh?  8)


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Devon97 on October 22, 2011, 05:53:06 AM
Because it's your personal opinion, it contributes nothing to the discussion and it got old a long time ago.

You're just passive-aggressively talking shit about people not buying in to the idea of 'god'.. you've said yourself you believe in a deity if I'm not mistaken. Apparently you're more comfortable talking shit than actually joining the discussion, and that's why you're a douche. Apparently the discussion is really lame and boring but at the same time you can't fucking keep your guido ass away from it and you have the nerve to complain.

LOL @ a fellow who still lives at home w/ his parents calling someone else out for "contributing nothing"  ;D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: lovemonkey on October 22, 2011, 06:18:53 AM
LOL @ a fellow who still lives at home w/ his parents calling someone else out for "contributing nothing"  ;D

You're weird man. I owned you in a discussion like well over a year ago and you're still bitter. Seriously, move on.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on October 22, 2011, 06:35:19 AM
What is it with polish people and anger issues..? Why does everything have to be a dick-measuring contest?

I didn't start this shit. I just love proving arrogant trolls like smm that they're nothing when they face real problem and all they do is writing shit.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on October 22, 2011, 10:34:06 AM
Unfortunately for many that don't belief, their minds are wide open and their hearts are completely shut.  They have vast knowledge and at the same time understand nothing.  You can't experience God unless you can truly open your heart, but that idea falls on deaf ears.  It's ignored completely and dismissed completely as fluff or nothingness or silliness and it's the crux of the matter.  Dawkins doesn't get it.  Hitchens doesn't get it. Dillahunty doesn't get it and unfortunately many others on this board don't get it either.  Oh sure, they comprehend the words, but nothing beyond that.  Open your heart completely to him with no reservations and a genuine desire to find him and see if he doesn't answer.  Refuse to do this and you won't get it.  


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 22, 2011, 08:25:43 PM
I have read bits and pieces of this thread. I think the issue is bigger than people realise.  I think at this point in human inquiry it is dangerous to take a stance on one side of the other.  The best we can assume is that we are getting clother to the truth.  If humans do ultimately learn the origins of everything, we will also learn why we didnt know for so long.  I think the average human has trouble sitting in the open space of not knowing, they are afraid of the energy that lies in that space so they grasp for an answer to relieve the human suffering within them.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on October 25, 2011, 11:07:33 AM
I think the average human has trouble sitting in the open space of not knowing, they are afraid of the energy that lies in that space so they grasp for an answer to relieve the human suffering within them.
On the flipside you could postulate that there are average humans that refuse to recognize God in order to somehow avoid his inevitable accountability and judgement.  Dismiss God, dismiss his commands, live however you want and then cease to exist.  Further one could suggest that the generalized positions of "God is a fairytale" and "I determine my own destiny" are nothing more than avoidance tactics.  Articulate well enough and rationalize away God via philosophical standpoints or adhere to a cosmological, metaphysical position that the universe is uncaused but brought about by quantum fluctuations with the understanding that "we just ain't found the answer yet" does the the same thing in the opposite.  Nonbelievers then say "but we have peer-reviewed evidence to support our position".  Believers say "but we have personal relationships and transcendent experiences with God to support our position" (certainly this just represents the personal evidence for God).  Your position says believers cope with the fear of inevitable death and suffering by inventing God (I find a bit of irony in the nonbelievers' notion that the invented God needed to cope with death and suffering is a cruel, malicious, tyrannical God that is also stated to have created the same suffering he was meant to snuff out).  While what I present here suggests that nonbelievers cope with the fear of God's law and judgement by dismissing him altogether.  Essentially, believers wish God into existence and nonbelievers wish God out of existence.  Since the believers' position purports a supernatural position it's immediately dismissed because it's outside the scope of human comprehension and widely accepted scientific principles......and that (from the nonbelievers perspective) simply can't be.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Necrosis on October 29, 2011, 11:40:43 AM
I have read bits and pieces of this thread. I think the issue is bigger than people realise.  I think at this point in human inquiry it is dangerous to take a stance on one side of the other.  The best we can assume is that we are getting clother to the truth.  If humans do ultimately learn the origins of everything, we will also learn why we didnt know for so long.  I think the average human has trouble sitting in the open space of not knowing, they are afraid of the energy that lies in that space so they grasp for an answer to relieve the human suffering within them.

this read like a person with happy puppet syndrome wrote it while on shrooms.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on October 29, 2011, 07:20:57 PM
this read like a person with happy puppet syndrome wrote it while on shrooms.
Whats happy puppet syndrome? Please tell me, I need to know to detrmine if I need to be offended or not.  ;D


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Necrosis on November 11, 2011, 10:09:36 AM
On the flipside you could postulate that there are average humans that refuse to recognize God in order to somehow avoid his inevitable accountability and judgement.  Dismiss God, dismiss his commands, live however you want and then cease to exist.  Further one could suggest that the generalized positions of "God is a fairytale" and "I determine my own destiny" are nothing more than avoidance tactics.  Articulate well enough and rationalize away God via philosophical standpoints or adhere to a cosmological, metaphysical position that the universe is uncaused but brought about by quantum fluctuations with the understanding that "we just ain't found the answer yet" does the the same thing in the opposite.  Nonbelievers then say "but we have peer-reviewed evidence to support our position".  Believers say "but we have personal relationships and transcendent experiences with God to support our position" (certainly this just represents the personal evidence for God).  Your position says believers cope with the fear of inevitable death and suffering by inventing God (I find a bit of irony in the nonbelievers' notion that the invented God needed to cope with death and suffering is a cruel, malicious, tyrannical God that is also stated to have created the same suffering he was meant to snuff out).  While what I present here suggests that nonbelievers cope with the fear of God's law and judgement by dismissing him altogether.  Essentially, believers wish God into existence and nonbelievers wish God out of existence.  Since the believers' position purports a supernatural position it's immediately dismissed because it's outside the scope of human comprehension and widely accepted scientific principles......and that (from the nonbelievers perspective) simply can't be.

how can anyone use a supernatural explanation for the natural, you can know nothing about it anyway so whats the point of invoking it? It could be a tooth fairy, it could be a green monster all are just as likely since none of them have any evidence for there existence, nor could there ever be any if they are supernatural. This type of thinking inhibits rational inquisition and thought, it claims that the answer has already been discovered and that we can't understand it anyway, its a sad way to go through life.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: tbombz on November 15, 2011, 02:23:20 PM
how can anyone use a supernatural explanation for the natural, you can know nothing about it anyway so whats the point of invoking it? It could be a tooth fairy, it could be a green monster all are just as likely since none of them have any evidence for there existence, nor could there ever be any if they are supernatural. This type of thinking inhibits rational inquisition and thought, it claims that the answer has already been discovered and that we can't understand it anyway, its a sad way to go through life.
EITHER THERE IS NO ANSWER, OR THE ANSWER IS GOD. IN EITHER SITUATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND. THESE ARE FACTS AND UNDEBATABLE.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Necrosis on November 15, 2011, 08:10:26 PM
EITHER THERE IS NO ANSWER, OR THE ANSWER IS GOD. IN EITHER SITUATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND. THESE ARE FACTS AND UNDEBATABLE.

what? how did you arrive at this conclusion?

energy can neither be created nor destroyed, energy exists, hence energy is eternal. Not hard to counter your statement.

U are claiming to know something you simply can't



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on November 15, 2011, 11:46:56 PM
EITHER THERE IS NO ANSWER, OR THE ANSWER IS GOD. IN EITHER SITUATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND. THESE ARE FACTS AND UNDEBATABLE.

So, your argument is that we can't understand the answer. But somehow, you proceed to provide an answer anyways... which can't, by your own admission, be understood.

What?

What's going on here?

Who's fuckin' with your medicine?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Necrosis on November 16, 2011, 08:27:40 AM
So, your argument is that we can't understand the answer. But somehow, you proceed to provide an answer anyways... which can't, by your own admission, be understood.

What?

What's going on here?

Who's fuckin' with your medicine?

yes it's completely irrational and ridiculous.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on November 18, 2011, 07:35:17 AM
EITHER THERE IS NO ANSWER, OR THE ANSWER IS GOD. IN EITHER SITUATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND. THESE ARE FACTS AND UNDEBATABLE.
So, your argument is that we can't understand the answer. But somehow, you proceed to provide an answer anyways... which can't, by your own admission, be understood.

What?

What's going on here?

Who's fuckin' with your medicine?

Sorry, what was the question again?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on November 18, 2011, 07:56:14 AM
how can anyone use a supernatural explanation for the natural, you can know nothing about it anyway so whats the point of invoking it? It could be a tooth fairy, it could be a green monster all are just as likely since none of them have any evidence for there existence, nor could there ever be any if they are supernatural. This type of thinking inhibits rational inquisition and thought, it claims that the answer has already been discovered and that we can't understand it anyway, its a sad way to go through life.

The proof for God lies in a humble heart that genuinely and honestly wants to know him.  Dismiss this and you won't ever experience the reality of God.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on November 18, 2011, 10:14:52 AM
The proof for God lies in a humble heart that genuinely and honestly wants to know him.  Dismiss this and you won't ever experience the reality of God.

More meaningless nonsense... How does a heart - an organ for pumping blood - get to "know" anything? See, that's the problem with taking words and using them completely out of context. You end up using words and saying nothing.

And let's not even get started with the irony that your monumental proof of god - whatever it is supposed to be - starts out with me having to accept the very premise you supposedly set out to prove. You are basically saying "I will prove god exists. First, you must believe in god. Q.E.D.!" Sorry to break it to to but logic and proofs don't work that way.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on November 19, 2011, 03:30:26 AM
The proof for God lies in a humble heart that genuinely and honestly wants to know him.  Dismiss this and you won't ever experience the reality of God.
Who the fuck wants to experience the reality of God. Just live your life dude - Just experience life you deluded God Bothering F*CK


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on November 19, 2011, 06:11:03 PM
More meaningless nonsense... How does a heart - an organ for pumping blood - get to "know" anything? See, that's the problem with taking words and using them completely out of context. You end up using words and saying nothing.

And let's not even get started with the irony that your monumental proof of god - whatever it is supposed to be - starts out with me having to accept the very premise you supposedly set out to prove. You are basically saying "I will prove god exists. First, you must believe in god. Q.E.D.!" Sorry to break it to to but logic and proofs don't work that way.
Sorry, but that's not what I said.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on November 19, 2011, 06:12:55 PM
Who the fuck wants to experience the reality of God. Just live your life dude - Just experience life you deluded God Bothering F*CK
If you don't want God you won't have God; although, there's no need for childish insults....I'm not insulting anyone.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on November 19, 2011, 06:20:22 PM
Sorry, but that's not what I said.

You said that god (whatever that is) lies (somehow) in the heart and that the heart (somehow) has to want to know him and must be humble (what?)

I have three questions: WHAT? HOW? HUH?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on November 20, 2011, 10:16:34 AM
You said that god (whatever that is) lies (somehow) in the heart and that the heart (somehow) has to want to know him and must be humble (what?)

I have three questions: WHAT? HOW? HUH?

Take your arguements directly to him, honestly and earnestly, and see if he doesn't answer you.  You believe it's all nonsense...cool.  Wanna really stick it to believers?  Then come at God head on like I said and see whether or not he reveals himself to you.  Don't try to reason him away, come right at him. 


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on November 20, 2011, 10:32:58 AM
Take your arguements directly to him, honestly and earnestly, and see if he doesn't answer you.  You believe it's all nonsense...cool.  Wanna really stick it to believers?  Then come at God head on like I said and see whether or not he reveals himself to you.  Don't try to reason him away, come right at him. 

I don't care about "sticking it to believers" at all; people can believe in whatever they want, provided they don't try to cram their belief down my throat or to enforce it on society at large.

As for "taking it directly to him" I'm sorry to disappoint, but I don't talk to figments of someone's imagination.

And as for not trying to reason things - I'm, again, sorry to disappoint; reason is the tool humans have for acquiring knowledge. It's not one of the tools. It's the tool. You will understand why I won't just set it aside.

If you have a logically sound and consistent definition of "God" then we can start there and discuss the matter further. Don't tell me nonsense like "have a humble heart" and "don't try to reason, come to him."


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on November 20, 2011, 06:07:57 PM
I don't care about "sticking it to believers" at all; people can believe in whatever they want, provided they don't try to cram their belief down my throat or to enforce it on society at large.

As for "taking it directly to him" I'm sorry to disappoint, but I don't talk to figments of someone's imagination.

And as for not trying to reason things - I'm, again, sorry to disappoint; reason is the tool humans have for acquiring knowledge. It's not one of the tools. It's the tool. You will understand why I won't just set it aside.

If you have a logically sound and consistent definition of "God" then we can start there and discuss the matter further. Don't tell me nonsense like "have a humble heart" and "don't try to reason, come to him."


Unfortunately I coulda typed your response for you and I don't mean that as an insult either....I've encountered many similar situations time and again so I'm becoming more versed in the flow of the conversation.  FYI ~ the God I'm referring to is the one true God.....the God of Christians around the world God......the creator of the heavens and earth.....the holy trinity in father, son and spirit....our risen Lord and savior.....the lamb worthy to be slain....the alpha and omega.......Jesus Christ......Yeshua....th e prince of peace.....the kings of kings.....  All I desire for others that don't know him is to know his love and receive his gift of salvation.  If you find all that to be nonsense that's ok, but I'm happy to share with you what I've experienced and what I believe.....if you don't want me to I won't.   Have a good evening.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on November 20, 2011, 07:49:48 PM
Unfortunately I coulda typed your response for you and I don't mean that as an insult either....I've encountered many similar situations time and again so I'm becoming more versed in the flow of the conversation.  FYI ~ the God I'm referring to is the one true God.....the God of Christians around the world God......the creator of the heavens and earth.....the holy trinity in father, son and spirit....our risen Lord and savior.....the lamb worthy to be slain....the alpha and omega.......Jesus Christ......Yeshua....th e prince of peace.....the kings of kings.....  All I desire for others that don't know him is to know his love and receive his gift of salvation.  If you find all that to be nonsense that's ok, but I'm happy to share with you what I've experienced and what I believe.....if you don't want me to I won't.   Have a good evening.

I, too, could have written your response for you; this isn't my first rodeo either.

Discussing/debating the subject - vigorously - is perfectly fine with me and if you want to have such a discussion or debate, then by all means, let's roll! But, I will let you know up front, that I will challenge you and your beliefs and I won't let you "get away" (for lack of a better term; pardon the expression) with using undefined terms and words out of context.

Your "definition" above, such as it is, doesn't define anything in a meaningful way and could (modulo the reference to Christians and the trinity) apply to a dozen different deities off the top of my head. Why is your deity better?

I'm not saying this to be rude or condescending or to upset or insult you. If we want to have this discussion we have to start at the bottom and build up. And the bottom is this simple 3-part question:

What are the attributes of "god"?
How did you come to know them?
How can I verify your knowledge and your assertions?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on November 21, 2011, 06:47:12 AM
I, too, could have written your response for you; this isn't my first rodeo either.

Discussing/debating the subject - vigorously - is perfectly fine with me and if you want to have such a discussion or debate, then by all means, let's roll! But, I will let you know up front, that I will challenge you and your beliefs and I won't let you "get away" (for lack of a better term; pardon the expression) with using undefined terms and words out of context.

Your "definition" above, such as it is, doesn't define anything in a meaningful way and could (modulo the reference to Christians and the trinity) apply to a dozen different deities off the top of my head. Why is your deity better?

I'm not saying this to be rude or condescending or to upset or insult you. If we want to have this discussion we have to start at the bottom and build up. And the bottom is this simple 3-part question:

What are the attributes of "god"?
How did you come to know them?
How can I verify your knowledge and your assertions?


No, there's no need for another rodeo.  

Just to be fair:

What are the attributes of "god"? In my humble opinion, the primary are love, grace and mercy.
How did you come to know them?  The revelation of the holy spirit in my life based on my choice to claim Christ as my risen Lord and Savior.
How can I verify your knowledge and your assertions?  You do what I said initially....you take it to the source for yourself honestly, earnestly and humbly.

Unfortunately, you appear to have made your choice about this issue.    Sure, we could have a Google warrior exchange and both cite scripture, website references, books references, etc.....and in the end no matter how convincing I may or may not be it, without acknowledging my initial position, the exchange would most likely resolve with "God's a fairytale anyhow".  So, I'm perfectly content with saying you won in this exchange.  That said, I'm currently left with no option but to shake the dust from my feet.  Have a good one!



Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: avxo on November 21, 2011, 08:51:48 AM
No, there's no need for another rodeo.  

Just to be fair:

What are the attributes of "god"? In my humble opinion, the primary are love, grace and mercy.
How did you come to know them?  The revelation of the holy spirit in my life based on my choice to claim Christ as my risen Lord and Savior.
How can I verify your knowledge and your assertions?  You do what I said initially....you take it to the source for yourself honestly, earnestly and humbly.

Unfortunately, you appear to have made your choice about this issue.    Sure, we could have a Google warrior exchange and both cite scripture, website references, books references, etc.....and in the end no matter how convincing I may or may not be it, without acknowledging my initial position, the exchange would most likely resolve with "God's a fairytale anyhow".  So, I'm perfectly content with saying you won in this exchange.  That said, I'm currently left with no option but to shake the dust from my feet.  Have a good one!


I wouldn't say I won, since we didn't even get off the ground, but you're very gracious. Have a good one too.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on November 21, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
I wouldn't say I won, since we didn't even get off the ground, but you're very gracious. Have a good one too.

You're absolutely welcome to ask me questions.  Now, I don't promise to have all answers immediately LOL and may have to study a bit, but I'm happy to discuss in a laid back kinda way.


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on November 23, 2011, 03:20:21 PM
If you don't want God you won't have God; although, there's no need for childish insults....I'm not insulting anyone.
Sorry I Insulted you - will you please forgive me  :(


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on November 23, 2011, 03:30:39 PM
You're absolutely welcome to ask me questions.  Now, I don't promise to have all answers immediately LOL and may have to study a bit, but I'm happy to discuss in a laid back kinda way.
Q: You are the ruler of a medieval empire and you are about to have a celebration tomorrow. The celebration is the most important party you have ever hosted. You've got 1000 bottles of wine you were planning to open for the celebration, but you find out that one of them is poisoned.

The poison exhibits no symptoms until death. Death occurs within ten to twenty hours after consuming even the minutest amount of poison.

You have over a thousand slaves at your disposal and just under 24 hours to determine which single bottle is poisoned.

You have a handful of prisoners about to be executed, and it would mar your celebration to have anyone else killed.

What is the smallest number of prisoners you must have to drink from the bottles to be absolutely sure to find the poisoned bottle within 24 hours?

Please Answer


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: deceiver on November 24, 2011, 03:18:47 PM
Q: You are the ruler of a medieval empire and you are about to have a celebration tomorrow. The celebration is the most important party you have ever hosted. You've got 1000 bottles of wine you were planning to open for the celebration, but you find out that one of them is poisoned.

The poison exhibits no symptoms until death. Death occurs within ten to twenty hours after consuming even the minutest amount of poison.

You have over a thousand slaves at your disposal and just under 24 hours to determine which single bottle is poisoned.

You have a handful of prisoners about to be executed, and it would mar your celebration to have anyone else killed.

What is the smallest number of prisoners you must have to drink from the bottles to be absolutely sure to find the poisoned bottle within 24 hours?

Please Answer

Do you mean optimistic or pessimistic scenario? You mean minimal number in the sense it will always suffice or that there exist such scenario in which this number will suffice?

Anyway in pessimistic scenario its ceil(log(1000)) = 10, coz |P(S)| = 2^|S| and you can distinguish every such set by one element (at least).


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on November 24, 2011, 04:17:41 PM
Do you mean optimistic or pessimistic scenario? You mean minimal number in the sense it will always suffice or that there exist such scenario in which this number will suffice?

Anyway in pessimistic scenario its ceil(log(1000)) = 10, coz |P(S)| = 2^|S| and you can distinguish every such set by one element (at least).
Hey dude, I was just kidding, have you really tried to work that out, because I forgot what the answer was. LOL


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Man of Steel on November 25, 2011, 06:30:49 PM
Q: You are the ruler of a medieval empire and you are about to have a celebration tomorrow. The celebration is the most important party you have ever hosted. You've got 1000 bottles of wine you were planning to open for the celebration, but you find out that one of them is poisoned.

The poison exhibits no symptoms until death. Death occurs within ten to twenty hours after consuming even the minutest amount of poison.

You have over a thousand slaves at your disposal and just under 24 hours to determine which single bottle is poisoned.

You have a handful of prisoners about to be executed, and it would mar your celebration to have anyone else killed.

What is the smallest number of prisoners you must have to drink from the bottles to be absolutely sure to find the poisoned bottle within 24 hours?

Please Answer

Is it 4?


Title: Re: Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.
Post by: Radical Plato on November 26, 2011, 12:28:07 AM
Q: You are the ruler of a medieval empire and you are about to have a celebration tomorrow. The celebration is the most important party you have ever hosted. You've got 1000 bottles of wine you were planning to open for the celebration, but you find out that one of them is poisoned.

The poison exhibits no symptoms until death. Death occurs within ten to twenty hours after consuming even the minutest amount of poison.

You have over a thousand slaves at your disposal and just under 24 hours to determine which single bottle is poisoned.

You have a handful of prisoners about to be executed, and it would mar your celebration to have anyone else killed.

What is the smallest number of prisoners you must have to drink from the bottles to be absolutely sure to find the poisoned bottle within 24 hours?

Please Answer
Do you mean optimistic or pessimistic scenario? You mean minimal number in the sense it will always suffice or that there exist such scenario in which this number will suffice?

Anyway in pessimistic scenario its ceil(log(1000)) = 10, coz |P(S)| = 2^|S| and you can distinguish every such set by one element (at least).
Hey dude, I was just kidding, have you really tried to work that out, because I forgot what the answer was. LOL
10 prisoners must sample the wine. Bonus points if you worked out a way to ensure than no more than 8 prisoners die.

Number all bottles using binary digits. Assign each prisoner to one of the binary flags. Prisoners must take a sip from each bottle where their binary flag is set.

Here is how you would find one poisoned bottle out of eight total bottles of wine.

       
 
  Bottle 1
 
  Bottle 2
 
  Bottle 3
 
  Bottle 4
 
  Bottle 5
 
  Bottle 6
 
  Bottle 7
 
  Bottle 8
 
  Prisoner A
 
  X
 
  X
 
  X
 
  X
 
  Prisoner B
 
  X
 
  X
 
  X
 
  X
 
  Prisoner C
 
  X
 
  X
 
  X
 
  X
 

   
In the above example, if all prisoners die, bottle 8 is bad. If none die, bottle 1 is bad. If A & B dies, bottle 4 is bad.

With ten people there are 1024 unique combinations so you could test up to 1024 bottles of wine.

Each of the ten prisoners will take a small sip from about 500 bottles. Each sip should take no longer than 30 seconds and should be a very small amount. Small sips not only leave more wine for guests. Small sips also avoid death by alcohol poisoning. As long as each prisoner is administered about a millilitre from each bottle, they will only consume the equivalent of about one bottle of wine each.

Each prisoner will have at least a fifty percent chance of living. There is only one binary combination where all prisoners must sip from the wine. If there are ten prisoners then there are ten more combinations where all but one prisoner must sip from the wine. By avoiding these two types of combinations you can ensure no more than 8 prisoners die.

One viewer felt that this solution was in flagrant contempt of restaurant etiquette. The emperor paid for this wine, so there should be no need to prove to the guests that wine is the same as the label. I am not even sure if ancient wine even came with labels affixed. However, it is true that after leaving the wine open for a day, that this medieval wine will taste more like vinegar than it ever did. C'est la vie.