• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is Atheism Irrational?

Lectro had at least 2, maybe 3 years more of school than that kid in the goggles. Be serious.
 
Seriously Lectro, just stop talking about science. You have clearly demonstrated that you lack even the most basic understanding of science. You do not even read what you post. You link a story about a study in which scientists recreated an image similar to that on the Shroud and bastardize that into the image requiring technology that does not currently exist and thus it is supernatural. It is utterly absurd and quite frankly insulting to my profession that you seek to "discuss" science without even doing research or reading on an issue. A cornerstone of science is critical analysis of data and findings, chiefly, through actually reading the findings themselves. You simply sensationalize story titles and twist findings to claim what you want them to do which makes you no different than the big, bad Science Mafia you rally against except of course for the fact they are actual scientists and the closest you have come is high school chemistry. That and the Science Mafia is fake and you are real.
 
Lectro said:
On your fucking planet you try and extrapolate the meaning of an entire paper out from a thumbnail excerpt.

Fuck off.
Click to expand...

They directly state that they recreated a similar image in the abstract. Are you seriously suggesting the authors themselves lied about their own findings in their own abstract in their own paper? Or maybe you didn't read it and have no idea what they found. I'll let you figure out which is more likely.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
Seriously Lectro, just stop talking about science. You have clearly demonstrated that you lack even the most basic understanding of science. You do not even read what you post. You link a story about a study in which scientists recreated an image similar to that on the Shroud and bastardize that into the image requiring technology that does not currently exist and thus it is supernatural. It is utterly absurd and quite frankly insulting to my profession that you seek to "discuss" science without even doing research or reading on an issue. A cornerstone of science is critical analysis of data and findings, chiefly, through actually reading the findings themselves. You simply sensationalize story titles and twist findings to claim what you want them to do which makes you no different than the big, bad Science Mafia you rally against except of course for the fact they are actual scientists and the closest you have come is high school chemistry. That and the Science Mafia is fake and you are real.
Click to expand...

Listen, bigdoublezeroaktree....
 
BigTreeDeac said:
They directly state that they recreated a similar image in the abstract. Are you seriously suggesting the authors themselves lied about their own findings in their own abstract in their own paper? Or maybe you didn't read it and have no idea what they found. I'll let you figure out which is more likely.
Click to expand...

Listen, I understand you are slowing...the scientists at Fermi on record speaking directly of the shroud when saying "the only method known is by some hitherto undiscovered/invented form of light transfer".

There is no mistaking what was said, implied, meant -- whatever you wish to call it. I did not run those headlines...science editors at those publications printed the "Supernatural" headlines. They understood what they read and so did I.

So fuck you and the horse you fell off of...
 
I'll be honest I have NO idea what the shroud of Turin is. In the end everything had to come from something. That seems to be a well established law. But it is also inconceivable that matter always existed when everything we observe has a lifespan. These two realities cannot exist unless there's is a starter of some point. Big Bang still doesn't address how the matter arrived.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Everything has a lifespan.

This is the earthly logic that leads me to a creator God. For me there is plenty of evidence elsewhere but this is the main logic for me to look outside of the natural world for the starting point.

Everything we observe dies. Matter dies/changes form. The absence of matter has never changed form into matter. Until that happens; the most logic explanation for life is supernatural because our natural law cannot explain it.

These threads usually go the same way. But it has been somewhat interesting to watch the shroud of Turin enter the debate. :).
 
Wrangor said:
I'll be honest I have NO idea what the shroud of Turin is. In the end everything had to come from something. That seems to be a well established law. But it is also inconceivable that matter always existed when everything we observe has a lifespan. These two realities cannot exist unless there's is a starter of some point. Big Bang still doesn't address how the matter arrived.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Everything has a lifespan.

This is the earthly logic that leads me to a creator God. For me there is plenty of evidence elsewhere but this is the main logic for me to look outside of the natural world for the starting point.

Everything we observe dies. Matter dies/changes form. The absence of matter has never changed form into matter. Until that happens; the most logic explanation for life is supernatural because our natural law cannot explain it.

These threads usually go the same way. But it has been somewhat interesting to watch the shroud of Turin enter the debate. :).
Click to expand...

I like how you threw in the "changes form" there and hoped no one would notice.

Living things have a lifespan, but matter and energy do not have a lifespan. They change forms, as you said.
 
Wrangor said:
I'll be honest I have NO idea what the shroud of Turin is. In the end everything had to come from something. That seems to be a well established law. But it is also inconceivable that matter always existed when everything we observe has a lifespan. These two realities cannot exist unless there's is a starter of some point. Big Bang still doesn't address how the matter arrived.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Everything has a lifespan.

This is the earthly logic that leads me to a creator God. For me there is plenty of evidence elsewhere but this is the main logic for me to look outside of the natural world for the starting point.

Everything we observe dies. Matter dies/changes form. The absence of matter has never changed form into matter. Until that happens; the most logic explanation for life is supernatural because our natural law cannot explain it.

These threads usually go the same way. But it has been somewhat interesting to watch the shroud of Turin enter the debate. :).
Click to expand...

Where did God come from?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Where did God come from?
Click to expand...

He didn't. That is the point. He created nature. Nature has laws. Natural matter dies/changes form. The supernatural (greater than natural) has always existed and will always exist. Nothing we observe in nature has ever sprouted from nothingness. So where did the first bit of matter come from? It had to come from somewhere.
 
Wrangor said:
He didn't. That is the point. He created nature. Nature has laws. Natural matter dies/changes form. The supernatural (greater than natural) has always existed and will always exist. Nothing we observe in nature has ever sprouted from nothingness. So where did the first bit of matter come from? It had to come from somewhere.
Click to expand...

It came from another bit of matter or energy that changed forms
 
i hope it has been pointed out in this thread that agnosticism is a non-position. Saying "I don't know anything about anything" (think Socrates) will always be the most rational, defensible position, because it's not taking a position at all.

Science only becomes religion-like if you accept its initial assumptions--that the universe is knowable, that our senses can be trusted, that our senses are valid ways to come to understand the natural world--as indisputable fact. these and other things are not proven, and most scientists already believe that first assumption, that we can even develop a theory of everything, is inconsistent with QM, chaos theory, uncertainty principal, and probably a number of other principals/laws.

So no, science is never going to able to tell you where you came from at the end of the day. Right now, what's supported by evidence are event up to the big bang. So that's as far as I choose to believe. This is the most rational position because it's what the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports.Questions/predictions about what happened before the big bang are (not yet) testable and so aren't really in the realm of science.

A lot of people want to say to me: Well, what came before the big bang? And I say, what came before god? Also keep in mind it's totally possible to ask meaningless questions.. "commonly phrased as: "what's north of the north pole?"

When people tell me atheism is a religion, I usually don't dignify the assertion with a response. Some people can take atheism to religions like levels as can be done with science, but atheism on it's own is hardly a religion in any traditional western sense. It is a belief, but again not all beliefs are equally valid.

.02c from layman
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Where did God come from?
Click to expand...

Yahweh came from an even more primordial god, who himself was spawned by an even more fundamental entity, duh.

@ all: here is a question that just occurred to me that i think is interesting..if you believe that an infinite multiverse is an appealing (simple) explanation for why we're here and why the laws of the universe operate as they do, that would logically mean that there are universes with a fickle grandfather type white god chillin' in the sky lol.
 
The Shroud is a living document. The image formed was made by an as yet unknown type of light. The best comparison that can be made is a coronal mass ejection (Prof. Setti)

The Shroud is a road map for Science. At least it should be and ought to be wrested away from the Catholic Church. Physics is searching for the portal to other dimensions. Here we have a human form which crossed just such an event horizon.

-- it doesn't matter all of the a-priori dismissals...the complicated nature of the item makes for heated discussion...

Yet the simple fact remains...nobody, no lab, nowhere has ever been able to reproduce something even remotely similar to the X-Ray Pia Secunda revealed in 1898. It is the Enigma. It does not matter if you believe it was made in the 13th century. The fact that 21st century technology cannot reproduce the image is enough to generate a lively discussion of natural/supernatural.
 
Lectro said:
The Shroud is a living document. The image formed was made by an as yet unknown type of light. The best comparison that can be made is a coronal mass ejection (Prof. Setti)

The Shroud is a road map for Science. At least it should be and ought to be wrested away from the Catholic Church. Physics is searching for the portal to other dimensions. Here we have a human form which crossed just such an event horizon.

-- it doesn't matter all of the a-priori dismissals...the complicated nature of the item makes for heated discussion...

Yet the simple fact remains...nobody, no lab, nowhere has ever been able to reproduce something even remotely similar to the X-Ray Pia Secunda revealed in 1898. It is the Enigma. It does not matter if you believe it was made in the 13th century. The fact that 21st century technology cannot reproduce the image is enough to generate a lively discussion of natural/supernatural.
Click to expand...

Shrouds be settled.

Did you check out the iceberg balloon?
 
dmcheatw said:
i hope it has been pointed out in this thread that agnosticism is a non-position. Saying "I don't know anything about anything" (think Socrates) will always be the most rational, defensible position, because it's not taking a position at all.

Science only becomes religion-like if you accept its initial assumptions--that the universe is knowable, that our senses can be trusted, that our senses are valid ways to come to understand the natural world--as indisputable fact. these and other things are not proven, and most scientists already believe that first assumption, that we can even develop a theory of everything, is inconsistent with QM, chaos theory, uncertainty principal, and probably a number of other principals/laws.

So no, science is never going to able to tell you where you came from at the end of the day. Right now, what's supported by evidence are event up to the big bang. So that's as far as I choose to believe. This is the most rational position because it's what the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports.Questions/predictions about what happened before the big bang are (not yet) testable and so aren't really in the realm of science.

A lot of people want to say to me: Well, what came before the big bang? And I say, what came before god? Also keep in mind it's totally possible to ask meaningless questions.. "commonly phrased as: "what's north of the north pole?"

When people tell me atheism is a religion, I usually don't dignify the assertion with a response. Some people can take atheism to religions like levels as can be done with science, but atheism on it's own is hardly a religion in any traditional western sense. It is a belief, but again not all beliefs are equally valid.

.02c from layman
Click to expand...

+1 for the civility. Completely disagree with you, but that is beside the point. This board is meant for discussion not a consensus agreement, and I think we sometimes forget that.
 
Raymond N. Rogers,
Fellow, University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory

It is clear that a corona discharge (plasma) in air will cause easily observable changes in a linen sample. No such effects can be observed in image fibers from the Shroud of Turin. Corona discharges and/or plasmas made no contribution to image formation. I believe that the current evidence suggests that all radiation-based hypotheses for image formation will ultimately be rejected.
Click to expand...


This dude totally missed the memo that the matter is settled.
 
Los Alamos doesn't fit into Lectro's respected lab category. Sorry bdz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top