Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

 

i think the theory is that blacks holes individually contain a singularity at their center, that the gravitational effects of black holes are actually a result of the singularity

i think that's how they're trying to tie singularities to our realm 

 

 

You seem absolutely certain that the scientific community has "faith" in singularities but when asked specifics there's a whole lot of "I think". Don't you think you should study what leading scientists in the field say before you make the claim that your remembrance that black holes and the big bang involve singularities is a sign that scientists are using faith?

i think was with regards to how singularities are are practical

there you go, does that clear things up for you?



Around the Network
pleaserecycle said:
o_O.Q said:

 

i think the theory is that blacks holes individually contain a singularity at their center, that the gravitational effects of black holes are actually a result of the singularity

i think that's how they're trying to tie singularities to our realm 

 

 

The singularities do not physically exist.  They're only mathematical. 

but scientists are attempting to apply them to the real world through black holes

that's the point i've been making



bdbdbd said:
o_O.Q said:

"You're right. It is religion that makes people to do that."

but atheists kill people too right?

Maybe. I don't know. So far I've never heard anyone killing other people because atheism told them to. Religion, on the other hand, is a whole different matter.

you don't know if atheist kill people or not?



o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:

You seem absolutely certain that the scientific community has "faith" in singularities but when asked specifics there's a whole lot of "I think". Don't you think you should study what leading scientists in the field say before you make the claim that your remembrance that black holes and the big bang involve singularities is a sign that scientists are using faith?

i think was with regards to how singularities are are practical

there you go, does that clear things up for you?

and what I'm looking for is citations. Actual articles where someone in the field says something to the tune of "though there is no current experimental evidence for the actual physical existence of a singularity we believe that such evidence is only waiting to be discovered" or some such nonsense. Otherwise you don't have faith but scientists attempting to apply a mathematical model to the real world, a practice that is perfectly normal and rational. 



...

Peh said:
o_O.Q said:

i didn't say anyone said so... so i'm not attacking a strawman... i'm just saying that atheists aren't bastions of moral virtue in response to the point that was made about religions influencing people to cause harm

and some religious people would make the point that without the grace of god atheists fall into temptation from the devil

atheists can't disprove that claim

Your very reply to bdbdbd is a non-sequitur, arf. He talks about the influence of religion itself, arf. You reply has absolutely nothing to do with his, arf. You just dodged his statement and went straight for atheists who also kill people to build a strawman, arf.

 

Uhm, why should I disprove a claim which you for example created, arf? Don't shift the burden of proof on to atheists, arf.

Besides not believing in a God or the devil, I don't see myself going around killing and raping people, arf. Nor do I see millions of other atheistic people do that, arf. For once, I've yet to see the numerous news on the media saying: atheististic group rapes women, throws suicide bombers into a group of people, throws gay people from roofs, going on a killing spree at a church, arf.

I also wouldn't really blame the term religion but the scripts that tell those people do to such things, arf. Also  Crazy  people are all over the place, arf.

But your argument can be turned against you with ease, arf.

Here, let me show you, arf:

While you say that it is the grace of God who shields you against the devil or so to say your believe in him, arf. Would you go killing and sinning all over the place when you don't believe in God, arf?

Is religion just an invention to keep people from going to do whatever they like to do, arf? Just think about it for a moment, arf. Why fear humans if you have to fear God's wrath, arf?

"He talks about the influence of religion itself, arf. You reply has absolutely nothing to do with his"

his statement was rhetorical... its the kind of statement that is obviously true and doesn't need to be addressed further... so i did not

if i told you water is wet, would you feel the need to challenge that statement?

 

"Uhm, why should I disprove a claim which you for example created"

its not my claim, its a claim that religious people would make of atheists

 

"You just dodged his statement and went straight for atheists who also kill people to build a strawman"

strawman definition "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument"

if i "dodged" his statement how can i be making a strawman? edit: and how did i misrepresent him?

 

" I've yet to see the numerous news on the media saying: atheististic group rapes women, throws suicide bombers into a group of people, throws gay people from roofs, going on a killing spree at a church"

i'm not understanding your point here... are you trying to say that atheists are more moral than other groups? or that they don't kill people in news worthy ways?

 

"While you say that it is the grace of God who shields you against the devil or so to say your believe in him, arf. Would you go killing and sinning all over the place when you don't believe in God, arf?"

"Is religion just an invention to keep people from going to do whatever they like to do, arf? Just think about it for a moment, arf. Why fear humans if you have to fear God's wrath, arf?"

its not my view, so i can't address your question

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 16 January 2018

Around the Network
Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

i think was with regards to how singularities are are practical

there you go, does that clear things up for you?

and what I'm looking for is citations. Actual articles where someone in the field says something to the tune of "though there is no current experimental evidence for the actual physical existence of a singularity we believe that such evidence is only waiting to be discovered" or some such nonsense. Otherwise you don't have faith but scientists attempting to apply a mathematical model to the real world, a practice that is perfectly normal and rational. 

probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

 

i can get more if you want




o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:

and what I'm looking for is citations. Actual articles where someone in the field says something to the tune of "though there is no current experimental evidence for the actual physical existence of a singularity we believe that such evidence is only waiting to be discovered" or some such nonsense. Otherwise you don't have faith but scientists attempting to apply a mathematical model to the real world, a practice that is perfectly normal and rational. 

probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

 

i can get more if you want


So again, he's applying the current evidence and mathematical models to state that he thinks there was a singularity. I can't agree that this is having faith in something. If I give you my best guess as to a certain enzyme's mechanisms even though we don't yet have enough data for it to be conclusive am I giving you a hypothesis or do I have faith in my explanation?



...

Torillian said:
o_O.Q said:

probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

 

i can get more if you want


So again, he's applying the current evidence and mathematical models to state that he thinks there was a singularity. I can't agree that this is having faith in something. If I give you my best guess as to a certain enzyme's mechanisms even though we don't yet have enough data for it to be conclusive am I giving you a hypothesis or do I have faith in my explanation?

he makes a lot of assumptions though and that's my point

for example "observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole"

for one thing, black holes aren't understood that well and another is that the idea that there is sufficient mass is another assumption

 

another thing is "observational evidence"... around 3% pf the universe is currently observable to us... they just call the rest dark matter



o_O.Q said:
bdbdbd said:

Maybe. I don't know. So far I've never heard anyone killing other people because atheism told them to. Religion, on the other hand, is a whole different matter.

you don't know if atheist kill people or not?

No, I don't know.

o_O.Q said:
Torillian said:

and what I'm looking for is citations. Actual articles where someone in the field says something to the tune of "though there is no current experimental evidence for the actual physical existence of a singularity we believe that such evidence is only waiting to be discovered" or some such nonsense. Otherwise you don't have faith but scientists attempting to apply a mathematical model to the real world, a practice that is perfectly normal and rational. 

probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

 

i can get more if you want


When we have something that's infinite in physics, it also means it's beyond measure. I believe the Hawking example of singularity is the shrinking of actual space-time so, that the interaction happen in Planck scale, where the universe appear to be 2D, and the only recognisable force would be gravity. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

o_O.Q said:
bdbdbd said:

You're right. It is religion that makes people to do that.

"You're right. It is religion that makes people to do that."

but atheists kill people too right?

Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?

We'll wait while you find it.

o_O.Q said:

 

"They won't be rewritten but added to."

you can't know that for certain since they might have to rethink certain aspects as they move forwards, that's a possibility... or they may just realise that they don't exist...

 

"That doesn't require faith."

to me it does when you don't even have any evidence that they exist, which they don't

I can know that for certain.  And the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject.  You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.  Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean that others don't know.  It's faith to you because you don't know enough otherwise.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."