new evidence suggests the universe doesn't exist

[Sosso]

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Society

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Apes? Chimps?  What do you want me to call them? 

 

We all share a common ancestor. We're also related to strawberries, potatoes and turtles in just the same way. It's pretty amazing if you think about it. 

[Ace Nova]

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

We all share a common ancestor. We're also related to strawberries, potatoes and turtles in just the same way. It's pretty amazing if you think about it. 

And stardust! 

It is pretty cool if you think about it.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

And stardust! 

It is pretty cool if you think about it.

Ah but we didn't evolve from stardust. It does make up every atom in our bodies however.

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Ah but we didn't evolve from stardust. It does make up every atom in our bodies however.

Pfft...semantics...I came from Stardust baby.  

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, Dazey said:

We all share a common ancestor. We're also related to strawberries, potatoes and turtles in just the same way. It's pretty amazing if you think about it. 

You are descended from a spud? Ahh, now everything makes sense. 

[action]

7 hours ago, Sosso said:

Your arguments are not very reasonable if you deny millions of years of evolution. I guess the same kind of people were responsible for the oppression of Darwin and Galilei 

"million years of evolution", when we're talking about humans, yes

those million years of evolution are mere days when we're talking microbes and viruses (who are yet made up of the same biological material as humans, just on a smaller scale). still, they're all microbes and viruses.

the length of the timescale needed for evolution is of no relevance to the underlying fundamental laws. when you look it that way, one species of monkeys really isnt that different than humans

[action]

10 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Whether gaps in our understanding point to the existence of gods or not, has nothing to do with science, but with common sense. And goddicts are very adept at suppressing common sense when it means they are rewarded by a false sense of evidence for their delusions. 

I'm always a bit amused when people come up with "common sense". anthropocentrism again. let me explain.

what defines common sense? it's what a large group of humans think is reasonable, i guess.

so "common sense" is flawed to begin with, since humans are very much flawed themselves.

common sense in north korea is different than common sense in syria or the US.

the ancient egyptians believed in the afterworld, it was their common sense. are they all "wrong" for believing so? if so, based on what? there was no "common sense" contingent back then that did not believe in an afterworld. you'd have to refer to a "common sense" in one part of the world, at one particular time in history. and therefore, i dont accept the argument of common sense.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by action

[Dazey]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are descended from a spud? Ahh, now everything makes sense. 

Not at all but we share a common ancestor. I mean seriously, why is this so hard for some people?

[Dazey]

8 minutes ago, action said:

The ancient egyptians believed in the afterworld, it was their common sense. are they all "wrong" for believing so? if so, based on what? there was no "common sense" contingent back then that did not believe in an afterworld. you'd have to refer to a "common sense" in one part of the world, at one particular time in history. and therefore, i dont accept the argument of common sense.

"Common sense" in this case is that nobody has ever seen this afterworld nor do they have any actual evidence to support its existence. 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I'd be interested to hear anyone's spiritual/supernatural experiences.

I saw the original Ghostbusters on opening weekend in the cinema.

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not really. The Reformation is on the curriculum of (general) history - as I said, I studied it at undergraduate level and I was doing 'history', not 'religious history' or 'theological history' or some derivative. It is virtually impossible to have any grasp of ancient, medieval, reformation-17th century history without a grasp of these era's belief structures. 

I wouldn't have put it on the curriculum of general history, at least not in such detail that students would be expected to be able to write 500 word essays about the theological difference in various denominations' nonsense.

11 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

For me, God and spirituality are completely natural.  And yes, I believe that Humans, in the spiritual sense, with the grace of the Holy Spirit are a reflection of God...or at least they have the potential to be....but they are never "greater than God".

When you look at your children, do you not see a spiritual being?  Or do you just see an evolved monkey?

Of course you think god and spirituality is natural. You hare brainwashed to think so.

When I look at my kids I see beautiful humans. Are you saying that the love parents feel when they look at their kids somehow suggests the existence of gods?

[SoulMonster]

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Sorry Soul but please shut up before you make an idiot of yourself.

No, there are so many important things to teach about the period of the Reformation than having to go into the intricacies of religious' superstitions. Sure, you have to at least superficially describe the theological disagreements, but going into it in any detail is a waste of time. As a pedagogue a guiding principle is: teach kids what is right, not everything we have thought but has been turned out to be wrong. It will suffice to briefly say that one sect thought one ridiculous thing while another thought something else equally ridiculous.

[SoulMonster]

8 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Here we go again haha!

I'll save you the bother,

''Priests...shagging kids...It is alli a load of bollocks'' blah blah blah.

How many times has this played out?

Too many to count and it will continue endlessly until people stop with their irrational beliefs. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

I'm always a bit amused when people come up with "common sense". anthropocentrism again. let me explain.

what defines common sense? it's what a large group of humans think is reasonable, i guess

No, 'common sense' is not some consensus agreement but rather what every person should be able to realize individually and alone. Hence it has nothing to do with groups, but since common sense is shared by all individuals you would expect it to be shared in groups, too. So stop guessing.

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, Dazey said:

Not at all but we share a common ancestor. I mean seriously, why is this so hard for some people?

You mean...I'm related to the Queen?!?  Yipee!  

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

No, there are so many important things to teach about the period of the Reformation than having to go into the intricacies of religious' superstitions. Sure, you have to at least superficially describe the theological disagreements, but going into it in any detail is a waste of time. 

You really do not know what you are talking about in the slightest. Religion permeates virtually every aspect of 16th and 17th history history (if we are focusing on the reformation?), from foreign policy and alliances, war, (The Thirty Years' War), the socio-economic, cultural - even marriage and sex, e.g. Henry VIII's marriage to Anne of Cleaves (Lutheran) was orchestrated by Thomas Cromwell as part of his evangelical policy.

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

teach kids what is right, not everything we have thought but has been turned out to be wrong. It will suffice to briefly say that one sect thought one ridiculous thing while another thought something else equally ridiculous.

It is neither the policy to teach kids ''what is right'' or ''wrong'' for that matter - your ''right'' is presumably your 21st century value judgment. That would be very 'bad history', history as used for propagandise and indoctrinate.  

It is the policy of history to teach the correct historical facts as understood and interpret those facts in their correct historical context.  

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I wouldn't have put it on the curriculum of general history, at least not in such detail that students would be expected to be able to write 500 word essays about the theological difference in various denominations' nonsense.

Undergraduate level. I'm not saying primary school kids should understand predestination!

Edited October 28, 2017 by DieselDaisy
Errant apostrophe

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, Dazey said:

Not at all but we share a common ancestor. I mean seriously, why is this so hard for some people?

Probably because I'm not especially interested in science. 

[Ace Nova]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I wouldn't have put it on the curriculum of general history, at least not in such detail that students would be expected to be able to write 500 word essays about the theological difference in various denominations' nonsense.

Of course you think god and spirituality is natural. You hare brainwashed to think so.

When I look at my kids I see beautiful humans. Are you saying that the love parents feel when they look at their kids somehow suggests the existence of gods?

I think there's something spiritual about the love parents have towards their children (or at least it can be, yes).

 

What's ironic is that your screen name is based off of a song who's title includes (soul) something you completely deny and despise the idea of.  

 

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You really do not know what you are talking about in the slightest. Religion permeates virtually every aspect of 16th and 17th history history 

Yet I will still maintain that having the poor students learn the various differences in absurd religious beliefs to such an extent that they can write a 500 word essay on it, goes beyond ordinary history, deprives the students from learning more important things, and should be in religious history or theology classes. 

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

I think there's something spiritual about the love parents have towards their children (or at least it can be, yes).

What is interesting is why you think such things? 

[Ace Nova]

40 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yet I will still maintain that having the poor students learn the various differences in absurd religious beliefs to such an extent that they can write a 500 word essay on it, goes beyond ordinary history, deprives the students from learning more important things, and should be in religious history or theology classes. 

What is interesting is why you think such things? 

Don't deflect my statement.  lol.  

Why is your screen name, named after a song, that's name is directly associated with spirituality?

  Why do you follow a band, which performs many songs that are directly linked to spirituality, the afterlife and even religions? Songs that include Heaven, Hell, God, the Devil (And that's just the titles...lol) the afterlife and spirituality? 

I would think someone who is as opposed to anything related to spirituality, religion, etc wouldn't stand to be a fan of such a band....especially since you believe that teaching anything in relation to such things should be banned.

How can you come here and make statements opposed to teaching about religion in the past, in the context of history...but at the same time, sing along to songs about such things? 

 

 

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Don't deflect my statement.  lol.  

Why is your screen name, named after a song, that's name is directly associated with spirituality?

  Why do you follow a band, which performs many songs that are directly linked to spirituality, the afterlife and even religions? Songs that include Heaven, Hell, God, the Devil (And that's just the titles...lol) the afterlife and spirituality? 

I would think someone who is as opposed to anything related to spirituality, religion, etc wouldn't stand to be a fan of such a band....especially since you believe that teaching anything in relation to such things should be banned.

How can you come here and make statements opposed to teaching about religion in the past, in the context of history...but at the same time, sing along to songs about such things? 

Heh. 

I am not against teaching religion, as you claim, but I think the teaching of detailed differences in doctrine is wrong focus in a general history course. It belongs in religious history or theology courses. Did you get it now? 

Secondly, your idea that as an anti-theist I can't enjoy GNR is nothing short than absurd. I even enjoy religious art (which GNR isn't), including music, architecture and poetry. I still maintain that belief in gods is irrational nonsense and that we'd be better off without such widespread superstition. 

And lastly, why does paternal love seem spiritual to you? Do you think anything that is deeply profound, mysterious, complex, enigmatic means that god is real? And if so, what in your upbringing has primed you to make such a illogical jump to conclusions? When were you psychologically conditioned to knee-jerk react to such things as them being evidence of the supernatural? There is no logic to it, you have been taught to make such thinking mistakes. 

[Ace Nova]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Heh. 

I am not against teaching religion, as you claim, but I think the teaching of detailed differences in doctrine is wrong focus in a general history course. It belongs in religious history or theology courses. Did you get it now? 

Secondly, your idea that as an anti-theist I can't enjoy GNR is nothing short than absurd. I even enjoy religious art (which GNR isn't), including music, architecture and poetry. I still maintain that belief in gods is irrational nonsense and that we'd be better off without such widespread superstition. 

And lastly, why does paternal love seem spiritual to you? Do you think anything that is deeply profound, mysterious, complex, enigmatic means that god is real? And if so, what in your upbringing has primed you to make such a illogical jump to conclusions? When were you psychologically conditioned to knee-jerk react to such things as them being evidence of the supernatural? There is no logic to it, you have been taught to make such thinking mistakes. 

So when you're listening to Knockin' On Heaven's Door..

And you child comes in and asks, "Dad, what's Heaven?"

You, "It's irrational nonsense."

Child, "Why are you listening to a song about irrational nonsense?"

You, "Because I enjoy it"

 

I guess that makes sense....it does make me laugh a little inside though...

 

Not in all cases but I think there's a special, spiritual bond when it comes to parental love.  It's different than love for a spouse, imo.  Many parents would immediately put their own lives at stake if it meant saving their child's life.  There aren't too many other situations, where most people would easily give up there own lives to save the life of someone else....(not talking about duty, such as military, first responders, etc). 

It's also something I feel when it comes to my son.  There are times I know exactly what he's thinking and feeling, without him even saying a word or making an expression.  It can be uncanny at times.  

[SoulMonster]

21 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

So when you're listening to Knockin' On Heaven's Door..

And you child comes in and asks, "Dad, what's Heaven?"

You, "It's irrational nonsense."

Child, "Why are you listening to a song about irrational nonsense?"

You, "Because I enjoy it"

 

I guess that makes sense....it does make me laugh a little inside though...

 

Not in all cases but I think there's a special, spiritual bond when it comes to parental love.  It's different than love for a spouse, imo.  Many parents would immediately put their own lives at stake if it meant saving their child's life.  There aren't too many other situations, where most people would easily give up there own lives to save the life of someone else....(not talking about duty, such as military, first responders, etc). 

It's also something I feel when it comes to my son.  There are times I know exactly what he's thinking and feeling, without him even saying a word or making an expression.  It can be uncanny at times.  

More like, "It is a form of afterlife found in many religions". "Why are you listening to a song about afterlife?" "Because I think the song is beautiful, even if the lyrics might not entirely fit with my worldview". 

Yes, the love parents feel for their children is stronger than any other forms of love. But again, that does not in any way imply godly existence. It can also easily be explained by evolutionary theory. So how do you go from, "I love them above anything!" to "Hallelujah!"? 

[Ace Nova]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

More like, "It is a form of afterlife found in many religions". "Why are you listening to a song about afterlife?" "Because I think the song is beautiful, even if the lyrics might not entirely fit with my worldview". 

Yes, the love parents feel for their children is stronger than any other forms of love. But again, that does not in any way imply godly existence. It can also easily be explained by evolutionary theory. So how do you go from, "I love them above anything!" to "Hallelujah!"? 

I don't go from "I love them" to "Hallelujah!".  Although there are times that make me feel that way after being with him...more along the lines of being grateful to God for him.