Belief Without Evidence WTF?

. All i am saying is that many religious people ignore contradictory facts that go against their religious texts.>>>

I'm a Christian. I'm not "religious" at all, and in fact deplore organized religion. My text is the Bible. So, find ONE thing in the bible that "ignores contradictory facts"

If your religious text is scientifically wrong and it is what defines god, well then seems that it has the potential to be wrong about that to.[/QUOTE]>>>

Agreed.

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:

im not sure , there certainly is no evidence that a god created it .

Click to expand...

Even in the first written text of man, and the first written religion of man. The universe created itself out of pure will. The universe is nothing more than the pure desire to be something, instead of nothing. Then the other religions came along and started making everything more simple minded.

SoCaldrums said:

. All i am saying is that many religious people ignore contradictory facts that go against their religious texts.>>>

I'm a Christian. I'm not "religious" at all, and in fact deplore organized religion. My text is the Bible. So, find ONE thing in the bible that "ignores contradictory facts"

If your religious text is scientifically wrong and it is what defines god, well then seems that it has the potential to be wrong about that to.

Click to expand...

>>>

Agreed.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying to find contradictions in the bible??? Because I've got at least one.

Finshaggy said:

The ground. Mostly Carbon and Water, bonded in a way that work with electricity, and strives to power itself(eat).

And plants are a manifestation of evaporation through solid materials.

Click to expand...

...carbon / 666

eye exaggerate said:

...carbon / 666

Click to expand...

Carbon divided by The mark of the beast equals the creation of life? Makes sense, the end result and the base number divided by each other gives you your answer.

Finshaggy said:

Carbon divided by The mark of the beast equals the creation of life? Makes sense, the end result and the base number divided by each other gives you your answer.

Click to expand...

...how about the long list of unsolved physics problems? I'm going back to the op here and adding this:

Theoretical problems

The following problems are either fundamental theoretical problems, or theoretical ideas which lack experimental evidence and are in search of one, or both, as most of them are. Some of these problems are strongly interrelated. For example, extra dimensions or supersymmetry may solve the hierarchy problem. It is thought that a full theory of quantum gravity should be capable of answering most of these problems (other than the Island of stability problem).

Quantum gravity, cosmology, and general relativity

Vacuum catastrophe
Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

Quantum gravity
Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)? Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

Black holes, black hole information paradox, and black hole radiation

Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by Gauge-gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants? Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow, if such a structure even exists?

Extra dimensions
Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally "see" evidence of higher spatial dimensions?

Cosmic inflation
Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation? If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some impossibly distant place?

Multiverses
Are there physical reasons to expect other universes that are fundamentally non-observable? For instance: Are there quantum mechanical "alternative histories" or "many worlds"? Are there "other" universes with physical laws resulting from alternate ways of breaking the apparent symmetries of physical forces at high energies, possibly incredibly far away due to cosmic inflation? Is the use of the anthropic principle to resolve global cosmological dilemmas justified?

The cosmic censorship hypothesis and the chronology protection conjecture

Can singularities not hidden behind an event horizon, known as "naked singularities", arise from realistic initial conditions, or is it possible to prove some version of the "cosmic censorship hypothesis" of Roger Penrose which proposes that this is impossible? Similarly, will the closed timelike curves which arise in some solutions to the equations of general relativity (and which imply the possibility of backwards time travel) be ruled out by a theory of quantum gravity which unites general relativity with quantum mechanics, as suggested by the "chronology protection conjecture" of Stephen Hawking?

Arrow of time
What do the phenomena that differ going forward and backwards in time tell us about the nature of time? How does time differ from space? Why are CP violations observed in certain weak force decays, but not elsewhere? Are CP violations somehow a product of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or are they a separate arrow of time? Are there exceptions to the principle of causality? Is there a single possible past? Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness? Why do people appear to agree on what the present moment is? (See also Entropy (arrow of time) below)

Locality
Are there non-local phenomena in quantum physics? If they exist, are non-local phenomena limited to transfers of information, or can energy and matter also move in a non-local way? Under what circumstances are non-local phenomena observed? What does the existence or absence of non-local phenomena imply about the fundamental structure of spacetime? How does this relate to quantum entanglement? How does this elucidate the proper interpretation of the fundamental nature of quantum physics?

Future of the universe
Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch or a Big Bounce? Is our universe part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model?


...absolutely foolish to believe in just about anything it seems.

eye exaggerate said:

...how about the long list of unsolved physics problems? I'm going back to the op here and adding this:

Theoretical problems

The following problems are either fundamental theoretical problems, or theoretical ideas which lack experimental evidence and are in search of one, or both, as most of them are. Some of these problems are strongly interrelated. For example, extra dimensions or supersymmetry may solve the hierarchy problem. It is thought that a full theory of quantum gravity should be capable of answering most of these problems (other than the Island of stability problem).

Quantum gravity, cosmology, and general relativity

Vacuum catastrophe
Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

Quantum gravity
Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)? Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

Black holes, black hole information paradox, and black hole radiation

Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by Gauge-gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants? Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow, if such a structure even exists?

Extra dimensions
Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally "see" evidence of higher spatial dimensions?

Cosmic inflation
Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation? If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some impossibly distant place?

Multiverses
Are there physical reasons to expect other universes that are fundamentally non-observable? For instance: Are there quantum mechanical "alternative histories" or "many worlds"? Are there "other" universes with physical laws resulting from alternate ways of breaking the apparent symmetries of physical forces at high energies, possibly incredibly far away due to cosmic inflation? Is the use of the anthropic principle to resolve global cosmological dilemmas justified?

The cosmic censorship hypothesis and the chronology protection conjecture

Can singularities not hidden behind an event horizon, known as "naked singularities", arise from realistic initial conditions, or is it possible to prove some version of the "cosmic censorship hypothesis" of Roger Penrose which proposes that this is impossible? Similarly, will the closed timelike curves which arise in some solutions to the equations of general relativity (and which imply the possibility of backwards time travel) be ruled out by a theory of quantum gravity which unites general relativity with quantum mechanics, as suggested by the "chronology protection conjecture" of Stephen Hawking?

Arrow of time
What do the phenomena that differ going forward and backwards in time tell us about the nature of time? How does time differ from space? Why are CP violations observed in certain weak force decays, but not elsewhere? Are CP violations somehow a product of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or are they a separate arrow of time? Are there exceptions to the principle of causality? Is there a single possible past? Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness? Why do people appear to agree on what the present moment is? (See also Entropy (arrow of time) below)

Locality
Are there non-local phenomena in quantum physics? If they exist, are non-local phenomena limited to transfers of information, or can energy and matter also move in a non-local way? Under what circumstances are non-local phenomena observed? What does the existence or absence of non-local phenomena imply about the fundamental structure of spacetime? How does this relate to quantum entanglement? How does this elucidate the proper interpretation of the fundamental nature of quantum physics?

Future of the universe
Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch or a Big Bounce? Is our universe part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model?


...absolutely foolish to believe in just about anything it seems.

Click to expand...

That's all getting into "Quantum Physics" and other "Hypothetical Sciences". That's not related to what OP said, and it's not even based in fact. It's based in math. I'm sorry if you think math is true, but it's not. Things change in math every year, maybe even every DAY. The thoughts we have in Quantum Physics are guesses, based on and further ideas from math ideas, that can still be corrected. We are not perfect, we have not figured out this world, we can not go guessing at worm holes, what they would do and such. That is Science Fiction, so far.
Go to the NASA website. Black holes have never, ever been seen. We guess at things MAYBE being black holes because, "There's so much gravity there what else could be there but a black hole." Bullshit. We haven't been past the fuckin moon in person(not camera, person). How the fuck are we supposed to be able to guess what something is that we can't see?????

Finshaggy said:

That's all getting into "Quantum Physics" and other "Hypothetical Sciences". That's not related to what OP said, and it's not even based in fact. It's based in math. I'm sorry if you think math is true, but it's not. Things change in math every year, maybe even every DAY. The thoughts we have in Quantum Physics are guesses, based on and further ideas from math ideas, that can still be corrected. We are not perfect, we have not figured out this world, we can not go guessing at worm holes, what they would do and such. That is Science Fiction, so far.
Go to the NASA website. Black holes have never, ever been seen. We guess at things MAYBE being black holes because, "There's so much gravity there what else could be there but a black hole." Bullshit. We haven't been past the fuckin moon in person(not camera, person). How the fuck are we supposed to be able to guess what something is that we can't see?????

Click to expand...

...I really wanted to show how futile it is to say that one hypothetical system is better than another hypothetical system. Science, in ways, is as much belief without proof. Both are continually changing 'entities'.

you think because you were dumb enough to get hit by a train and survive that god saved you? then it seems that train also made you crazy on top of all those broken bones...

Science is belief without proof eh lmao. Some of you are nut jobs.

Ok, bring it. I can't wait...because it will *have* to be one that hasn't been caught by anyone else in the last few thousand years. But here's what'll happen: you'll come up with one, I'll explain why it's not one, you'll ignore what I say, we'll yell at each other for awhile, then we'll move on while keeping our separate opinions. Or...I could just smoke some Chocalope and not bother.

Finshaggy said:

>>>

Agreed.

Click to expand...

Are you saying to find contradictions in the bible??? Because I've got at least one.[/QUOTE]

Plain and Simple.. Santa is real so god has to be, and demons, and boogy men, and miracles, and all that other wizardry bullshit harry potter pre teen fantasy chasing child molesters.


have fun.

TogTokes said:

Science is belief without proof eh lmao. Some of you are nut jobs.

Click to expand...

...what is so hard to accept about this? You have proof, we accept that. I think everyone wants proof to some degree. But it is also fact that proof has things that still need to be proven. Go ahead with partial proofs and claim difference from 'believers'.

eye exaggerate said:

...I really wanted to show how futile it is to say that one hypothetical system is better than another hypothetical system. Science, in ways, is as much belief without proof. Both are continually changing 'entities'.

Click to expand...

I'm basing my statement on observation. Not math OR science OR religion.

TogTokes said:

Plain and Simple.. Santa is real so god has to be, and demons, and boogy men, and miracles, and all that other wizardry bullshit harry potter pre teen fantasy chasing child molesters.


have fun.

Click to expand...

...why does everyone go back to this sht? It bores me to particles.

SoCaldrums said:

Ok, bring it. I can't wait...because it will *have* to be one that hasn't been caught by anyone else in the last few thousand years. But here's what'll happen: you'll come up with one, I'll explain why it's not one, you'll ignore what I say, we'll yell at each other for awhile, then we'll move on while keeping our separate opinions. Or...I could just smoke some Chocalope and not bother.




Are you saying to find contradictions in the bible??? Because I've got at least one.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]


Ok, just wait. I gotta do a little reading maybe. I already have it written down, but if I can't find it I'll have to do some searching. I remember it though. I'll give you the Exact place to find it and everything.

Finshaggy said:

I'm basing my statement on observation. Not math OR science OR religion.

Click to expand...

...fair enough.

Right? Freaking 8th graders.

eye exaggerate said:

...why does everyone go back to this sht? It bores me to particles.

Click to expand...

TogTokes said:

Plain and Simple.. Santa is real so god has to be, and demons, and boogy men, and miracles, and all that other wizardry bullshit harry potter pre teen fantasy chasing child molesters.


have fun.

Click to expand...

Way over used....

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:

you really dont get it do you , its so simple a child could understand it . i DONT BELIEVE is different to I BELIEVE , i lack the belief in your god so there is no BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE because i freakin LACK BELIEF , how much simpler can one make it ?

Click to expand...

Listen dipshit, lol. You have stated so many fucking times that I ignore the evidence you claimed to have, I kept asking for YOUR evidence and you kept saying you're stupid Heph. Then you said I'm ignoring your evidence, so again I asked what evidence is it that I'm ignoring. You answered that by calling me a dumbass, idiot, religious nutjob. So THEN you say "you're still ignoring my evidence and good points", so I ask what good evidence and good points; you then say o don't need to show you. By then other members of RIU got suspicious and started asking you what evidence; you combat your lack of evidence by calling intelligent individuals like blazinkill, oly, and spliff Chris stupid. You then say all religious people ignore your evidence that contradicts their beliefs, then everyone says WHAT EVIDENCE? And you say you're all stupid. Do you see the fucking pattern? If you don't then you're the biggest dumbass ever, ha.