Thread: The Scoreboard

Its usually pretty easy to tell who studies the world for the sake of knowledge and understanding, and who does it for the sake of self centered oneupmanship based on who is trying to keep score.

Its usually pretty easy to tell who studies the world for the sake of knowledge and understanding, and who does it for the sake of intelligent sounding self centered justification of wishy-washy 'spirtuality' based on who doesn't want to keep score.

If you want truth, keeping score sorts it out from trash. It's also called testing your hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Lucky27

I don't really like that argument. I think God worked on a different time scale. I know there's probably no way to prove this, but I sometimes wonder if the scale of time is kind is more of a spiral than linear. Where Day 1 is twice as long as Day 2. And Day 2 is twice as long as Day 3; which is twice as long as day 4...etc.

It does say in the Bible that to God, a day is as a thousand years. Does that help?

Yes. That helps a lot in that it gives us a conversion ratio between 'god' days and 'human' days. So the bible says that the universe and life was created in 7000 'human' years. I'll go ahead and put that up as a victory for science if three people don't say that the universe was created in 7000 years.

Also, does anybody know anything about scientists denying the possibility of lucid dreaming? If we can get some concrete data on that, I'll go ahead and chalk that up as another victory for religion as the tibetan buddhists have been using it as part of their discipline for centuries.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Its usually pretty easy to tell who studies the world for the sake of knowledge and understanding, and who does it for the sake of intelligent sounding self centered justification of wishy-washy 'spirtuality' based on who doesn't want to keep score.

If you want truth, keeping score sorts it out from trash. It's also called testing your hypothesis.

You would only need to keep score if you were dead set on making it a competition. Science and religion (generally speaking) are not in opposition with each other. As far as I am concerned, all of your points for science are also points for religion. Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies (among others) covered all of your 'science points' long before science even existed.

Fuck, I can't edit my OP anymore so I guess the scoreboard is dead as abra wanted.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You would only need to keep score if you were dead set on making it a competition.

Or if there was already a competition. The judeo-christian-islamic cult needs to die. It's been fucking with us for far too long. Yes, intelligent people can gain spiritual truth out of the bible but they could do it out of moby dick just as well. They could do it out of a holy text that was worth the name even better. They started it when they made Galileo recant and they pursue it by sending out a hoard of lying psuedo-scientists to deny evolution. It is a system of thought which, when taken at anything approaching face value, breeds ignorance and bigotry.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Science and religion (generally speaking) are not in opposition with each other. As far as I am concerned, all of your points for science are also points for religion. Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies (among others) covered all of your 'science points' long before science even existed.

I agree on all points. Good religion is not an enemy of science because it is not an enemy of truth. It complements science. They both aim to shed light on ignorance. You don't have to think to hard though to notice that I started this thread to ridicule the judeo-christian-islamic cult and make the point that I could do so just by sticking to objective facts.

Originally Posted by me

Biased in what way? I'm really doing my best to just stick to facts. Is dealing with facts biased in some way that I'm not aware of?

I had a grin on my face a mile wide when I typed those words. It still gives me a chuckle. That quote is the point of this thread. I lost interest after that.

EDIT: I should note that I still hate calling good religion 'religion' because I feel that the name has been dragged to shit. I really prefer 'spirituality' or some variant of that.

What christian group wronged you in such a way that you're so bitter/upset? You keep screaming that the Judeo-christian-islamic "Cult" needs to die because they hide/block the truth (which by the way makes you sound like some crazy conspiracy theroist) but what aout all the GOOD that they have done? Why would you want to kill the largest charitable organization in the world? I'm not saying only religious people help others but we have done more to help the "dregs of society" than anyone else in the world. Besides, it isn't like we all willingly bow down and follow blindly, we just see a diffrent, more subtle truth, than you do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies (among others) covered all of your 'science points' long before science even existed.

And did those cosmologies come from divine revelations, not human reasoning?

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

What christian group wronged you in such a way that you're so bitter/upset?

Wronged me in particular? Not one that I can think of. Two of my best friends in the world are lesbians and they should be married and want to be married. If one of them got hurt seriously, they wouldn't want their family making those decisions, they would want their lover doing it. Rightfully so. They can't get married because of cultural attitudes that can be traced with not much effort and very little imagination to an interpretation of the bible that you have to do gymnastics to avoid admitting condemns homosexuality. That we know of, most of the ancient cultures had no problem with it.

The attitude that pre-marital sex is a sin is used as a justification to tell people in africa that they should abstain from sex instead of using condoms. This leads to the spread of aids and kills many people. The same thing happens in the states and leads to lots of kids being born to parents that aren't ready. Abstinence is a joke as far as birth control goes; it doesn't take a huge brain to see that. The judeo-christian-islamic notion of morality has warped our culture to an extent that only seems normal to you because you have been around it your whole life.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

You keep screaming that the Judeo-christian-islamic "Cult" needs to die because they hide/block the truth (which by the way makes you sound like some crazy conspiracy theroist) but what aout all the GOOD that they have done?

As for the first 'point', i'll refrain from laughing my ass off and simply point out that they make no secret of their intentions:

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page
http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html

If it was only a few people that actually believed that crap, then it would be funny like the flat earth society is but that is not so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in965223.shtml

49% of people in the US think that humans didn't evolve. 70% of people think that they didn't evolve or think that god guided it. So 49% of the people in my country are fundamentalists in that they put their 'faith' and 'spirituality' above facts. People that are willing to do that are not funny.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Why would you want to kill the largest charitable organization in the world? I'm not saying only religious people help others but we have done more to help the "dregs of society" than anyone else in the world. Besides, it isn't like we all willingly bow down and follow blindly, we just see a diffrent, more subtle truth, than you do.

Enough of you do willingly bow down and follow blindly. Evolution is not a hard concept. Those of you that don't accept it just don't want to because it's just another area where god isn't needed. The abrahamians have done more philanthropic work than anyone else for the simple reason that most major civic organizations have been based around abrahamian mythology. It's people getting together that leads to people doing good; not religion. People are good at heart and care about each other. That's just a fact. So if abrahamian mythology was to disappear tomorrow, those people that do good would still do so. You can also play off the good against the stuff that I mentioned in the first part of this post and maybe it starts to even out a little bit.

As far as a 'more subtle truth', I'm just gonna laugh my ass off and let murray gell-mann do my talking for me. The first two minutes make my point about subtlety.




The 'subtlety' of the bad religions have nothing on the subtlety of physics and the subtlety of the good religions dovetail very nicely with the subtlety of science. I'll go with the good ones such as buddhism and taoism. Like I said to Xaquaria, one can pull good and subtle truth out of the bible but somebody that can do that could pull it out of moby dick. The difference is that an idiot wont read moby dick and decide to blow people up.

You're scoring was off anyway. There is no science that pre-dates The Book of Job. In which the scriptures acknowledged the Earth hanging and suspended upon nothing.

Originally Posted by IrisRavenstar

It does say in the Bible that to God, a day is as a thousand years. Does that help?

Thats 2 Peter 3:8 and you took that completely out of context. First this statement has nothing to do with creation. It's not defining a day because it doesn't say a day "is" a thousand years. The text says one day is "like" or "as" a thousands years the word "like" or "as" is merely a figure of speech in this context, it is what we know today as a "simile". Its a simile because it teaches us that God is outside of time. The Apostle Peter conveyed that readers should not lose heart because God "seems' slow at fulfilling his promises because he is patient and also because he is not confined to time as we are. In lieu of this, Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say the earth was created in 6000 years. We simply do not know how long as there is no time frame that we can associate with.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

And what if the essence or phenomenon that is labeled "God" is indeed that which science measures through its infant means?

...and this same "God" , by many different names, is also that which religions build themselves around?

Religion must yelid bit by bit to scientific fact, but science must eventually yield to a quality that religions place upon the phenomenon that both are looking at. That being a quality of livingness that this phenomenon which religion calls "God" is.

Great one

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

And did those cosmologies come from divine revelations, not human reasoning?

What is the difference exactly?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is the difference exactly?

If Einstein happened to be Christian or whatever would you count his achievements as a win for religion?

@Abra, there is absolutely no historical evidence to Jesus. Like you said, religion is based off of faith. All you can do is hope he can exist through random excerpts and accounts from "believers".

Anyway to play the game :

So using Abra's logic, if the nature of religion is only that of "faith", and we ourselves only percieve substance and subject matter that is not metaphysical, it would only make sense to be who we are, that is, logical human beings. Not impulsive upon speculation and wishful thinking, speculation because there is no evidence, i.e lacking verification and truth. So therefore believing in something something like religion would be illogical, and therefore becomes irrational with respect to the biological nature human being. So for being logical and not conforming to religious principles, I will burn in hell? Don't...think..so.

Science +1

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

If Einstein happened to be Christian or whatever would you count his achievements as a win for religion?

If he came to the realization through meditation that Energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light(edit:squared) 9000 years ago, then yes I probably would.

Off by a factor of c but I'm giving it to him anyway

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

@Abra, there is absolutely no historical evidence to Jesus. Like you said, religion is based off of faith. All you can do is hope he can exist through random excerpts and accounts from "believers".

There is absolutely no historical evidence to Abiogenesis but you believe in this. inanimate molecules kick starting themselves and thrusting all of life forward to what we see today has not even been scientifically proven, however you must posses a great deal of faith in the unseen to believe this has transpired.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

So using Abra's logic, if the nature of religion is only that of "faith", and we ourselves only percieve substance and subject matter that is not metaphysical, it would only make sense to be who we are, that is, logical human beings. Not impulsive upon speculation and wishful thinking, speculation because there is no evidence, i.e lacking verification and truth. So therefore believing in something something like religion would be illogical, and therefore becomes irrational with respect to the biological nature human being. So for being logical and not conforming to religious principles, I will burn in hell? Don't...think..so.

So what exactly is speculation?
From the Mirram-webster dictionary

Speculation: 1 a an act or instance of speculating: as a : assumption of unusual business risk in hopes of obtaining commensurate gain b : a transaction involving such speculation.

So in short it's just an assumption.

What is an Hypothesis?

Hypothesis: 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action.

Hmmm in short this seems to be an assumption aslo

Last I recalled Abiogenesis was an Hypothesis. Wow look at that: looks like it's an assumption also.

hehe.. What's a Theory?

Theory : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
I'll give it that.
however defintion number 2
2.: abstract thought : speculation

Looks like we're back to where we started huh?

Perhaps it should be renamed to Darwin's Speculation of Evolution.

Originally Posted by Dream4free

Science -1

I'll just take that. Thank you.
Religion +1

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If he came to the realization through meditation that Energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light(edit:squared) 9000 years ago, then yes I probably would.

He didn't though.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

There is absolutely no historical evidence to Abiogenesis but you believe in this. inanimate molecules kick starting themselves and thrusting all of life forward to what we see today has not even been scientifically proven, however you must posses a great deal of faith in the unseen to believe this has transpired.

and yet Abiogenesis is still an assumption without any scientific evidence to support it.

Truth hurts don't it?

That isn't true; there are many competing hypotheses on how life may have begun on our planet, such as the RNA-world argument, the life from ice argument, Panspermia (More specifically, life forming inside of a meteor (Which are known to contain large amounts of amino acids) and being transported to a primitive earth where it flourished), deep-sea vents, etc etc. There is also another hypothesis that says that primitive earth had a highly reductive atmosphere, and that this combined with the organic compounds on earth lead to the creation of amino acids and then other molecules necessary for biological organisms.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

and yet Abiogenesis is still an assumption without any scientific evidence to support it.

Truth hurts don't it?

Everything in science is an assumption.

And Dr. Cox has spoken. There's nothing left to say.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

There is absolutely no historical evidence to Abiogenesis but you believe in this. inanimate molecules kick starting themselves and thrusting all of life forward to what we see today has not even been scientifically proven, however you must posses a great deal of faith in the unseen to believe this has transpired.



So what exactly is speculation?
From the Mirram-webster dictionary

Speculation: 1 a an act or instance of speculating: as a : assumption of unusual business risk in hopes of obtaining commensurate gain b : a transaction involving such speculation.

So in short it's just an assumption.

What is an Hypothesis?

Hypothesis: 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action.

Hmmm in short this seems to be an assumption aslo

Last I recalled Abiogenesis was an Hypothesis. Wow look at that: looks like it's an assumption also.

hehe.. What's a Theory?

Theory : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
I'll give it that.
however defintion number 2
2.: abstract thought : speculation

Looks like we're back to where we started huh?

Perhaps it should be renamed to Darwin's Speculation of Evolution.


I'll just take that. Thank you.
Religion +1

1. I said science +1, not science -1. Don't quote me incorrectly please.

2. How does this bring us back where we started? I did not even bring up Darwin in my analytical brainstorm. Regardless I have a lot more respect for him than I do for organized, conformist religions. He actually developed his theory upon facts and evidence, rather than hoping that heaven exists for obvious commensurate gain without said verifications, he posited with logical rationale. A move much more bold and logical than just folding over to a organized religions advertising with a magical wonderland where you can see your family again. Where this does bring us to is to? A lot of false assumptions you make off what I wrote.

3. About Abiogenesis.... its another hypothetical study of life, a posited guess for a reason based off of scientific rationality, a principle religion lacks, as to how the universe originated. Here is where religion whips up the "God" concept. Which is somehow more logical than biologically lifeless matter spontaneously creating the universe . A omnipotent being, all loving and all merciful, who originated from what? Oh, I remember. God is special. He/She/It can be spontaneously created form lifeless matter or spontaneously arise from himself, which of course we be self refuting if you dismiss Abiogenesis as false. Interestingly now the universe can't have that nature. It first needs a spontaneously created maker to in turn create it from his omnipotent powers. Maybe if I was a poor farmer, uneducated and life sucked, I might justify this logic to myself In hopes for something better than making ends meat.

4. You trying to deduce the words speculation and hypothesis as simply "assumption" is going to prove both of our inoculative measures as false.
The subtle differences in the meanings of the words are there to help broaden our understanding of what we are trying to convey. Over simplifying these subtle differences will create ambiguity in our messages and be rather unproductive. Religion is not a hypothesis because it conveys a meaning for life, which philosophically pertains nothing to objectivity of science. Religion is not a theory because you can't test God through observation, his nature is metaphysical, not scientific. Religion does provide many assumptions, i.e.. the existence of "God" and "Jesus". We take these assumptions for granted as yes, and back in the day if you objected to these principles you got killed. That is a wonderful form of advertising.....not. We have matured in our intelligence and reformed religion so much it fits everyone now. Making it much more profitable and comfortable neoteric for our simpletons; inquisitive about his "meaning" in life. . All on all man, I need verification and truth upon its surmises in all of its conjectures to logically conform to something. If you want illogically conform to something for the physiological benefit it may yield to your obsessed mind, that is your decision and many will agree with it. Forever will there be dissonance between scientific rationality and religion, and I yield to the objectivity of existence, not the subjective claims of happiness and "deeper meaning".

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

and yet Abiogenesis is still an assumption without any scientific evidence to support it.

Truth hurts don't it?

We've already adequately covered how this is just a stupid red herring that stupid creationists throw out there in the hopes that other people are as stupid as them.

Biological evolution assumes and depends upon a pre-existing set of replicating entities. Everything about biological evolution is geared towards explaining that situation. The question of what physical processes would cause a set of self-replicating molecules to arise is still an open question. If you want to believe that god did it, fine. As there is not a conclusive and valid scientific theory about abiogenesis, I would be unable to fairly and legitimately call you ignorant for doing so. The funny thing is that this is one of the things that we can cook up in the lab and when it does occur, you will be one of the first ones to be claiming that it is a separate issue and in no way confirms biological evolution.

And by the way,

Originally Posted by Yo-yo

The General Theory of Evolution you say is a scientific fact? Support that claim with credible resources to back up that fallacious statement.

I never claimed that "The General Theory of Evolution" is true and I wouldn't because "The General Theory of Evolution" is just another stupid creationist strawman that is taken to encompass everything that any bible-thumping fundamentalist anywhere in the world cares to deny. You know that damn well and that was a skeezy move. As is your posturing about how I failed to provide references when the only thing that I couldn't back up with citations was the one sentence that didn't make behe look like an ignorant surrender monkey. Again, skeezy.

I said it once, but I'll say it again:

Originally Posted by me

Fucking pathetic if you ask me. You have nothing to depend upon for your backwards beliefs but lies, misinformation and distortion.

You're a smart person yo-yo. It really is ashame that your religion has warped your brain to the point where you are going to lie and pull purposefully manipulative maneuvers to obscure truth. You could have been a good scientist. It just makes me loathe the judeo-christian-islamic cult that much more.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

He didn't though.

right? I don't understand where you are going with this.