Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Brian Cox and the Wonders of Life....in other words more scientific propaganda.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 338 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 21:13:24 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 21:15:06 GMT
AJ Murray says:
You could simply have said I can't.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 21:17:15 GMT
Bellatori says:
An abstract is something you cannot measure. Sorry but you cannot measure heaviness. Each person makes an assessment of heaviness based on internal factors. You are trying to conflate heaviness and weight and they are not the same.

The examples you gave are not equivalent. I can measure colour-blindness using Ishihara cards. You cannot measure heaviness. Each person who lifts the case will have an opinion of how heavy it is. All of which may be different BUT all of which will be true within their frame of reference.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 21:21:24 GMT
Bellatori says:
DB says: "Bellatori... Your subjective opinion does not disprove that."

Absolutely and my point exactly. But bear in mind also that your subjective opinion does not prove he does either.

Of course you could try offering some proof but then I would recommend sticking to it as an article of faith. Proof implies objective evidence and generally, along with UFOs, this is where people such as yourself tend to come unstuck.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 21:29:01 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 21:53:17 GMT
Bellatori says:
"I have the evidence that convinces me."

I suspect that most of your 'evidence' is supposition and assertion. I doubt you have any 'real' evidence which is why, of course, it is called a faith.

"You choose not to accept it." I do not chose to believe the moon is made of green cheese despite assertions to the contrary. This is also governed by the recovery of moon rock and its analysis. Similarly I do not stand under a cloud getting wet and chose to believe it is not raining when the evidence is to the contrary. The important word is evidence.

If such evidence existed then THE religion would be out there assimilating all the other 'false' religions and converting all us atheists. This is not happening so such evidence clearly does not exist.

Many religions, in the past, got round this lack of accessible evidence but claiming 'mysteries' which were only available to the inner circle of initiates and priests. Some such ran for a very long time (Cult of Isis?) but in the end they crumble because of lack of evidence.

I wrote once before that 'ignorance and credulity' are required for religion to thrive which is why it is making big strides in third world countries and is in decline in the more advanced ones.

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 21:55:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Feb 2013 21:58:10 GMT
R. Kroell says:
That reminds me of the movie "Ronin". Nobody knows what was in the case.
But, of course, a case can be heavy, or not.
But you can refer to science. It can give you the mass or weight (two different things). It can also say what "weight" it will have on the Moon or Mars. You can trust science on that.
So, how can you make such a claim as "God is real"? And besides, which one?

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 21:57:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Feb 2013 21:58:32 GMT
R. Kroell says:
Some hundreds years ago, natural Desasters were the proof for a God. We now know better.
Has the real God shown his-/herself in th last 2000 years?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 22:03:23 GMT
On the contrary, I can hypothesize that a certain percentage of people will find the thing heavy, and a certain percentage will call it light.
I can measure the weight of the case.
I can undertake studies of the population involving set weights, and determining a bell curve demographic of strength across a cross-section of people.
The more people involved, the better the data.

There will come a point were I can make a statistical analysis whereby it will hold enough external validity whereupon I can point to a given weight and say that a given percentage of the population will call it heavy, or light.

This does not change your subjective experience, as I stated before. I will also state again, that, as before, it will show how common your experience is.

I am conflating nothing - but what I am doing is understanding and quantifying 'heaviness'.

Research has been done with pain, in just this manner - surely the most subjective thing in the world, and yet those studies have helped inform pain management and drug therapies. This is not idle speculation.

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 22:03:50 GMT
Bellatori says:
R. Kroell says: "So, how can you make such a calim (sic) as "God is real"? And besides, which one?"

Like heaviness, 'God' is an abstract object and therefore is subject to internal analysis. For 'you' therefore God may exist whereas for me God does not exist. As with heaviness both statements can be true.

The problem arises when you start to quantify. With heaviness you can start using weight/mass and make some arbitrary assumptions and away you go. At this point I have to go back to something I have repeatedly stated. Whilst this is an act of faith there is no point of attack as it were for atheists. I happen to feel that when someone makes a claim to faith then there is no argument. I may hold a contrary view but faith is never wrong to the faithful so what is the point of argument. However when someone adds just one word and you get 'God exists because...' then we are in the realm of evidence and assertions which can be tested. Let the argument begin!!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 22:10:40 GMT
C. A. Small says:
"god is real"- which god exactly? and what parameters do you use to deny the existence of the hundreds of other gods?

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 22:16:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Feb 2013 22:17:28 GMT
R. Kroell says:
A proof of God today goes like this:
369 People died in a natural disaster yesterday. A child was found alive in the rubble, it was a wonder, it must be saved by God. There is a God that watches over our children.
So why did God let the other children die?
I remember those horrific Picture of a Little Girl stuck in the mud and rubble after a volcanic Eruption (I think it was in South America or the Philipines). People desperatly tried to help, but the Girl died. Is this also a proof of God?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 22:16:38 GMT
Bellatori says:
The basic question is... "Is this case heavy"
I say no, my wife says yes.

So which is it?

The answer is that it is both.

All the experimental evidence you will have compiled means absolutely nothing. It fails to answer the question. It is irrelevant to say that (for example) half the population say it is heavy and the other half say it is not. So what? Is the case heavy?

Reminds me of the old joke... 'Are you a man of decision? Err well, yes and no...'

"I will also state again, that, as before, it will show how common your experience is." Again, so what?

"quantifying 'heaviness'." No you are not... it is not quantifiable. It is an abstract concept internally conceptualised.

"Research has been done with pain, in just this manner - surely the most subjective thing in the world" Is it? Surely we can measure the conductivity and reaction of the nerve cells to fixed stimuli. On the other hand it is also subjective if you ask someone how painful something is. ...and again not the point.

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 22:21:55 GMT
R. Kroell says:
The proof for God is ...............?
A heavy-light case?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 22:29:01 GMT
Of course, you assume that the data will split half and half with the light and heavy. It is obvious you havent followed the whole process.
The point is that I *can* make a statistical study - whether you argue about its validity or not - and say something about your subjective experience quantifiably. Again, you may choose to argue with that finding, but simply asserting something doesn't grant your assertion the same status.

The point? This is what religion does.

Science studies and seeks to understand. In one of the earlier posts, I hypothesized something. The results of that will either back or refute the hypothesis.
If it is backed, I can show the results to others - who may or may not agree - who can follow my methodology and see if they can replicate my results.

If this goes on long enough, then the hypothesis might become a Scientific Theory with evidence of its findings.

Religion, on the other hands simply asserts something as being true. It then seeks downplay evidence and proofs against it as being of an equal parity - that you are both right, regardless of the actual truth.
This was the point I was trying to make - I can assert something and show a methodology.
You can disagree, but without a methodology or results of your own, it is evidence vs opinion.
Both sides are not equal and subjective as religion would love us to accept.

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 22:30:35 GMT
R. Kroell says:
When you check in at the Airport, will they ask you "Is your case heavy?" or will they Charge you the weight of the case on the scale?
So, will you make me believe of a God on the base of a 2000 year old myth, or the "scale" of science?

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 23:02:31 GMT
Ian says:
When I was younger I used to do a lot of backpacking. Sometimes I would weigh my rucsac after I had finished packing it.

By the time I got to where I was camping my rucsac was invariably a lot heavier than when I set off in the morning, sometimes too heavy to lift again if I put it down (though it had been light enough to lift without much difficulty when I set off). This seemed odd to me because logic told me that if I had eaten some of my food and drunk some of my water but not added anything to the bag it must be lighter. But I "knew" it was heavier. Foolishly I didn't bother to weigh it again (what would be the point - it was obviously heavier).

It seems that one approach was that of evidence and logic and the other is Diane's form of knowing something.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Feb 2013 23:20:42 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 00:05:25 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 00:40:02 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Feb 2013 00:41:03 GMT
Oh my. How confused you are.
What test is there for atheism that I deny all other beliefs?
Why am I an atheist?
1) I do not believe in a magical sky-faerie that dictates an absolute moral code that we must adhere to or face punishment for. (Divine Command).
2) Having studied both OT and NT texts, I am unconvinced of its' veracity. This includes the four separate traditions with differing tetragrammatons for 'god' and their differing theologies in the Pentateuch. I do not hold that badly translated Greek misinterpretations (Septuagint) would have been in the arguments that a divine Jesus would have made to the council of Sanhedrin.
3) I studied and understand many pagan religious beliefs and systems. The cross is far older than Christianity would have you believe. Numerous gods in multiple religions claim a dying and resurrecting god-man born of a virgin, wise beyond his years as a young man bettering elders in discourse; turning water in wine, healing the sick and performing miracles. The same can also be said of Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras, who had many of those claims made about him, and had his own followers.
4) I do not believe in Apostolic procession from Peter (a name which, incidentally means rock, and is used in pagan traditions to show allegorical foundations).
5) Understanding of the various religious groupings in the Judean area could give rise to misunderstandings in translation ie Lazarus was excommunicated from his community - and was dead to them, and a preacher overstepped his authority and welcomed him back after a set time beyond that allowed was misunderstood and mistranslated.
6) The area in which the so-called Christ preached was thoroughly Hellenized and steeped in Greek tradition. These traditions have been misunderstood totally and misrepresented.
7) The sign of the fish, supposedly Christian, predates Christianity and can be found to a symbol of fertility in pagan religions, usually at an upright where it is called the Vessica Pisces.
8) The 'Diabolical Mimicry' argument is a joke.
9) The origin of what we call the 'conscience' was worshipped by Sumerians as an 'ancestor god' (god of our fathers) which YHWH directly aligns himself with with Moses.
10) I do not believe that women are inferior, and the fact that paternalistic religions have sought to control women means that they cannot be the divine truth due to man's actions.
11) I do not believe in a god of the gaps.
12) My favourite part of the bible is where, having given mankind free will, god doesnt like how they behave. So he killed them with a flood.
13) Priests in Christian doctrine followed celibacy from around the 6th Century CE. This was because the Church didnt want to lose land and monies due to inheritance. There is no reason for priests to be celibate other than the greed of the church.
14) Heresy. The Inquisition. The persecution of the Waldenses, the Cathars and others who did not follow heterodoxy - this is all power, mind control of the masses and greed.

I can go on, and as you can see I am widely read, I have questioned beliefs and rationales. I have studied with an open mind and researched areas. I have drawn a different conclusion from you; one based on evidence and philosophy (much of which is older than so-called Christianity, and is more profound).

I use reason and logic, you reject that for faith - which by definition is a rejection.
You say that atheism is nothing, and then say it must be questionable to be true..... which we run away from? I do not understand this - we have questioned YOUR beliefs and said 'Not Convinced'. Thats it. There is no belief system in atheism. There is nothing to question in saying 'I don't believe YOU'.

**edited for spelling**

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 03:27:34 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 13 Feb 2013 23:01:03 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 03:35:13 GMT
light says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 3 Feb 2013 04:16:49 GMT
light says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 08:55:10 GMT
C. A. Small says:
FRM- Diane will never accept that atheism is just a lack of a belief. She has had it explained to her ad nauseum, and still willfully misconstrues it. If reality ever dawned in her world her head would explode. Or more likely implode since there appears to be a vacuum between her ears.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013 09:03:05 GMT
Bellatori says:
F. R. Mainwaring: "Of course, you assume that the data will split half and half with the light and heavy. It is obvious you haven't followed the whole process."

Oh I followed the whole process all right. You simply have not thought about the question being posed.

Is the bag heavy?

You might also like to consider whether quite heavy is heavier or lighter than fairly light.

"The point is that I *can* make a statistical study" Yes you can but it would be pointless as it could never answer the question 'Is the bag heavy?'

The problem here is that you are trying to force quantification on an abstract idea.

Is 1 tonne heavy? The correct answer is compared to what. The point about the case is that for each person there is an internal comparison going on against some internal conceptual matrix that includes the concept heavy.

"If this goes on long enough, then the hypothesis might become a Scientific Theory with evidence of its findings. " Only if you want to waste your time and I can already give you an answer to 'Is the bag heavy?' which is 'Yes and No'
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
The Power of Prayer. 1847 1 minute ago
Time to ignore the religion forums trolls.? 105 1 minute ago
Remain or Leave? 223 12 minutes ago
Today's most intelligent and outspoken atheist is .... 234 3 hours ago
Why are the BBC so slow to report incidents such as the Cologne new years eve's sex attacks, by immigrants or the Muslim paedophile rings in Rotherham and Rochdale. Is it because THAT IS THE CULTURE AT THE BBC. 17 10 hours ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1055 11 hours ago
The Bible is not the "Word of God" 1492 11 hours ago
Where did science orignally come from ? 524 14 hours ago
Stop labeling children. 738 20 hours ago
Pumpkin Head 2892 1 day ago
Orlando Shooting 796 1 day ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  338
Initial post:  20 Jan 2013
Latest post:  1 Mar 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions