Religion

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)

148. Wrong again, slick.

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:19 PM

Feb 2013

but simply claimed the existence of black holes without anything to indicate their existence? Interesting.

Einstein observed gravity affected the motion of light, and that gravity was correlated to mass. Using Einstein's relativistic equations, scientists predicted that once an object reached a certain mass, light would be unable to escape. They didn't need to observe a black hole to predict their existence.

That you don't seem to understand that theoretical physics employs mathematical models--not experimentation--to explain and predict natural phenomena speaks to precisely how unqualified you are to continue this conversation. I haven't the time, the patience, nor the inclination to teach you what you would be more than capable of discovering yourself if you were as committed to learning as you are to contrarianism.

I wash my hands of this insanity. You have Google. You have five minutes. You look it up.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

157 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Atheism: A personal relationship with reality." [View all] cleanhippie Jan 2013 OP

Here's the Billboard: Being positive won't make any difference, the radical theists will be outraged Fumesucker Jan 2013 #1

It won't just be the radical theists outraged. trotsky Jan 2013 #3

I'm not offended--more like bemused zazen Jan 2013 #5

That's quite a stretch. trotsky Jan 2013 #7

Don't forget the "I'm an atheist, but..." crowd. Iggo Jan 2013 #14

Maybe it would make you feel warm and fuzzy Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #72

My post was actually a tongue-in-cheek response to this: trotsky Feb 2013 #77

Passive-aggressive, rancorous posts are OK when you make them for GAWD. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #112

one of the prettiest billboards I've ever seen Viva_La_Revolution Jan 2013 #11

How can one have a personal relationship with something inanimate? rug Jan 2013 #2

The same way you can have a personal relationship with someone who may or may not have lived... Fumesucker Jan 2013 #4

Winner! cleanhippie Jan 2013 #6

There's more sense to that that communing with a rock. rug Jan 2013 #8

Is that all you think there is to reality? Fumesucker Jan 2013 #9

Reality is more than human beings. Everyone has personal relationships with people. rug Jan 2013 #10

Do you believe that Jesus is/was just another human being? Fumesucker Jan 2013 #12

No. Are you aware of the concept of the hypostatic union? rug Jan 2013 #13

That's a strong foundation you've got there. mr blur Jan 2013 #15

Sounds more like rationalization for disregarding reality. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #16

If you have something to say to or about me, say so directly. rug Jan 2013 #18

If I have something to say to you you will know it. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #21

Good. Make sure you're looking at me when you say it. rug Jan 2013 #22

Are we playing "Things a priest might say" now? cleanhippie Jan 2013 #23

No, we're playing "Things cleanhippie doesn't like to get called on." rug Jan 2013 #24

Only in your mind. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #40

Ok, go look for some more cartoons now. rug Jan 2013 #43

Feel better now? cleanhippie Jan 2013 #44

Yes, the word is indeed sad. rug Jan 2013 #45

Cool story, bro. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #46

I think you're told old for that phrase. rug Jan 2013 #47

You mad, bro? cleanhippie Jan 2013 #48

No, engaging stupidity amuses me. rug Jan 2013 #49

Then by all means, continue talking with yourself. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #55

It would be far more productive. rug Feb 2013 #56

Then go be productive. The only one stopping you is you. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #57

Fortunately, you only take a few seconds. rug Feb 2013 #58

As with many things you say, it's just plain wrong. It's been a day now... cleanhippie Feb 2013 #59

Thare's a quick three seconds. rug Feb 2013 #83

Do you hear that alot? cleanhippie Feb 2013 #85

Now it's two. rug Feb 2013 #86

but does it fascinate you? Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #63

Not as much as watching a toile flush. rug Feb 2013 #82

Feel free to try to deconstruct it. rug Jan 2013 #17

Don't think I've heard the term but the concept is indeed familiar Fumesucker Jan 2013 #19

That's a good way to put it: "unscrew the unscrutable". rug Jan 2013 #20

There's no evidence that Jesus existed. Outside of the bible, PDJane Feb 2013 #152

animists and pantheists might disagree. Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #25

Animists by nature believe everything has a soul, an anima. rug Jan 2013 #28

thanks for the clarifying definitions Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #30

Patronized comes from pater, son. rug Jan 2013 #31

here i though it came from 'patron'. the booze. yuk. Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #39

I don't rhink that picture is meant to imply okasha Jan 2013 #29

He had, tama Jan 2013 #33

Good one! okasha Jan 2013 #35

Even if there is no god, and I don't think there is one, ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #26

I love it... Kalidurga Jan 2013 #27

Splitting hairs seeking underlying reality...Sat... sanatanadharma Jan 2013 #32

If you cannot see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it - then it doesn't exist. Now that's humblebum Jan 2013 #34

If you can't explain something... Act_of_Reparation Jan 2013 #37

You can try to explain tama Jan 2013 #38

"Real experience" is anecdotal... Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #89

Useless or usefull tama Feb 2013 #92

Decidedly Useless Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #96

Just to make sure tama Feb 2013 #97

Is there a point to all of this? Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #105

It was not rhetorical but genuine question tama Feb 2013 #107

That's his usual schtick. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #41

But my "usual schtick" isn't used nearly as often as your "usual schtick" humblebum Feb 2013 #53

Sounds fallacious to me Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #91

Perhaps you should make more effort then... gcomeau Feb 2013 #60

Perhaps I should have identified it as sarcasm. It was meant humblebum Feb 2013 #62

I recognized what it was. gcomeau Feb 2013 #66

It can also be reasoned that there is a high certainty that God is real. In any case, humblebum Feb 2013 #67

I dare you to even begin to so reason. gcomeau Feb 2013 #68

Well. if you insist on being technical, then I will change the term "proof" to "evidence." humblebum Feb 2013 #69

"However, there is plenty of subjective evidence to suggest the existence of God. " gcomeau Feb 2013 #73

Your argument, I believe, was for any evidence for the existence of God. One could use humblebum Feb 2013 #74

Wrong. gcomeau Feb 2013 #76

Actually, they are arguments, but they are not arguments that you accept. And yes, we are discussing humblebum Feb 2013 #78

No, they aren't. They're names. Titles. gcomeau Feb 2013 #80

You and I both know that these arguments can never be won. But you are more than welcome humblebum Feb 2013 #81

Don't tell me what I know. gcomeau Feb 2013 #84

Actually people like me realize that subjective evidence very much exists and we also realize humblebum Feb 2013 #87

And yet appear incapable of examining or explaining it. Interesting no? gcomeau Feb 2013 #90

Have you ever had an orgasm? nt tama Feb 2013 #93

I must say no. rug Feb 2013 #95

"evaluating evidence in a supernatural framework is an impossibility" - well, considering your humblebum Feb 2013 #94

Uh-huh... gcomeau Feb 2013 #99

Yes, you did mention that there is a difference between proof and evidence, but you failed to humblebum Feb 2013 #100

You babble on... gcomeau Feb 2013 #103

It's quite obvious that you don't know how to evaluate it either. humblebum Feb 2013 #106

Evaluating evidence in a natural framework is straightforward. gcomeau Feb 2013 #108

No one is debating your methodology and it is very straight forward. What is being debated now humblebum Feb 2013 #109

And what you are avoiding dealing with... gcomeau Feb 2013 #110

I still say you don't know everything about evaluating evidence. And I have dodged nothing. humblebum Feb 2013 #111

What you have dodged tama Feb 2013 #131

Well in that case, I guess I dodged commenting on the weather and revealing humblebum Feb 2013 #133

Yup tama Feb 2013 #136

Good grief. gcomeau Feb 2013 #143

You have received very sufficient explanations of methodologies used to determine humblebum Feb 2013 #144

I have not received ANY explanation of methodology... gcomeau Feb 2013 #145

Good night, Gracie! nt humblebum Feb 2013 #146

Sure, run along now. Don't trip over the tail between your legs. -nt gcomeau Feb 2013 #147

Completely wrong. Zoeisright Feb 2013 #155

"...the universe looks exactly as it does as if there were no God." Really? And humblebum Feb 2013 #157

where exactly did you get that from? Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #64

Get what from? humblebum Feb 2013 #65

Tell me: 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #113

Probably because after the existence of neutrinos was first postulated, evidence for humblebum Feb 2013 #114

Thanks for admitting your post 34 is a straw man. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #115

Just how do you figure that that post is a straw man? nt humblebum Feb 2013 #116

Wow, you can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch neutrinos? 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #117

So are you saying that the existence of neutrinos was not empirically proven humblebum Feb 2013 #118

Once again, you demolish your own original post in this subthread. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #119

You are making a lot of noise but no music. Explain yourself. humblebum Feb 2013 #120

I am intelligible to those that have the ability to understand. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #121

In that case, I will stand by my original post. nt humblebum Feb 2013 #122

So you're decreeing I don't believe in neutrinos. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2013 #123

It's more as if you are decreeing that you do not believe in the evidence of neutrinos, humblebum Feb 2013 #124

Incorrect. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #125

I never said that you could see gravity or taste an electromagnetic field, nor implied such, humblebum Feb 2013 #127

Detecting gravity tama Feb 2013 #130

No Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #134

If you say so tama Feb 2013 #137

Will do Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #139

Minor nitpick tama Feb 2013 #140

Do you not understand, or are you deliberately obstreporous? Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #138

"scientists were able to predict the existence of black holes" - so then they did not observe data, humblebum Feb 2013 #141

Wrong again, slick. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #148

So you have now plainly stated that empiricism (or logical empiricism) were not used humblebum Feb 2013 #150

Atheists tama Feb 2013 #142

I sincerely doubt that Act_of_Reparation Feb 2013 #149

"including those which do not rely on direct observation." - so who is talking about humblebum Feb 2013 #151

You say well tama Feb 2013 #153

That was beautifully put. I too feel that human experience is much more complex than humblebum Feb 2013 #154

I would not consider that foolish tama Feb 2013 #128

Agree. humblebum Feb 2013 #129

Flashes of light tama Feb 2013 #126

It's rather teling that an ad for atheism okasha Jan 2013 #36

Yeah, a curtain, books, and landscape is biblical imagery. cleanhippie Jan 2013 #42

So the Amazing Kreskin is still with us. okasha Feb 2013 #70

Or option number three... cleanhippie Feb 2013 #71

Your option three okasha Feb 2013 #98

you mean someone is seeing jesus in a pancake again? Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #101

Something like that. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #104

It's directed at the religious, why wouldn't it be? gcomeau Feb 2013 #61

that's not the intent of these billboard campaigns Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #102

or as glenn beck's 'the blaze' puts it in their headline.. Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #50

I can't understand why something someone (atheists) don't believe in upsets them so much. There must demosincebirth Jan 2013 #51

That you don't understand the issue at all is quite obvious. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #54

Try living... gcomeau Feb 2013 #75

In my experience tama Feb 2013 #88

Deepens? I watched Prop. 8 pass, watched gays and lesbians lose their civil rights... Moonwalk Feb 2013 #132

Oh boy tama Feb 2013 #135

I know the area, and will be out there in April - too late, but I would have liked to see it lunasun Jan 2013 #52

Cool! sdfernando Feb 2013 #79

This is exactly right. Zoeisright Feb 2013 #156