One natural place for bullies to end up is the military, where a strict hierarchy can put them in positions of safety. One such example: Major Jonathan Dowty, who has a blog called the “Christian Fighter Pilot” and belongs to the Officer’s Christian Fellowship, where privileged thugs can gather and plot to proselytize to the lower ranks. Or simply to attack the helpless.
As a devout Christian officer, Major Dowty has made it a practice to publicly attack and defame atheist and other non-Christian enlisted service members by name, knowing that they can’t respond to defend themselves because he’s an active duty officer, so it would be insubordinate for them to respond to him.
The only salvation is to leave the military, get out from under the regulations that protect creatures like Dowty, and speak out…as one sergeant has now done on This Week in Christian Nationalism.
I’m just wondering when the other officers will recognize that Dowty is using his religion as a club to hammer on enlisted men, and realize that maybe this is not helping morale or unit cohesion? Unless, of course, they want a military consisting only of religious zealots. Do we civilians want a Janissary corps, though?
I prefer absinthe truth.
Would that be the Bible, Mac? The ancient text that’s currently in a zillion different versions, and whose content has mutated greatly from the original? He gives us his “Word”, then allows it to be splintered and modified to the max. Some god!
Without God we know nothing
That’s not true.
thats how i can know for certain that the God of the Bible is true.
Therefore the god of the Bible is false.
Because his has reveled it to us.
Still confused??? How do you know? Without God you can know nothing. Im not going to discuss anything else till i know where you are getting your logic!
Mac:
For shit’s sake, use quotation marks (” “) or something.
lol, wut?
You don’t know for certain that the biblical god is true, that’s the entire fucking point. In fact, you can’t present us with any evidence for your imaginary friend at all, so why should any of us assume that he’s real?
The bible is simply a book, sweetheart. Old tales written by flawed men, which are no longer applicable in the modern world. For instance: Same-sex marriage is legal in my home state (NY). We’ve suffered no plagues, no one has been turned into a pillar of salt, god didn’t fire-bomb us, not a peep. If he’s such an awesome being, why is he ignoring the VAST AMOUNTS! of sinning that’s going on right now?
tim gueguen #495
The Jebusites get around this by muttering shit about “free will” and “don’t test gawd” and “gawd’s testing us” and shit like that.
My guess is the Jebusite gawd has been steadily losing his powers. A long time ago he could poof the entire universe into existence in six days. Then some time later he got pissed off at people but instead of zapping the good guys into heaven and recreating just the Earth, he had to settle for a big flood. The some time after that, god junior shows up and gets killed. It takes him a day and a half to poof himself all better. Now gawd is reduced to showing himself on slices of toast and dog’s asses. The old omnipotence is showing its impotence.
Incidentally, Mac, the above is a form of humor called a “joke.” I don’t actually believe in any of that shit, especially the existence of gawd.
Sally Strange:
Silly Sally, that sort of thing is demeaning, that’s why he created the wimmins!
:eyeroll:
We can know for certain that at the least a God exists because without Him, we would have no concrete basis for saying there is no God
No it wasn’t. It was actually the work of Sokar in an effort to discredit God. He did his damnedest to make God look like an evil sadistic fuckstick in an attempt to steal followers away. He never imagined people would read the Old Testament and still worship the asshole. That’s when he gave up on the humans of Earth and moved to Delmak.
Sally:
+1!
Really, why do we need sexual reproduction at all? God *poofed!* Adam and Eve into existence, so why couldn’t he have done that with the rest of us?
(And why do I feel like the sophisticated theological argument would have something to do with original sin? What a stupid fucking concept.)
That was very tricksy of him. Invent logic, make himself incompatible with logic, then punish people for exercising it.
Also the equivalent of the problem of evil applies to those who believe god to be perfectly logical. If god is perfectly logical and created humans then why are humans so illogical:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html
You actually think that shit makes sense and choose to click Submit? If you only knew how ridiculous you look.
Mac is a bot, it must be. No human could be that resistant to reality (and I’ve heard my share and yours too of apologetics).
hotshoe, as a person who has licked asses and enjoyed it, I resent the comparison. For everyone else: Damn! An old-fashioned fundie-boil and I’m all out of butter! Keep fighting the good fight; Ima go drown my atheist misery with dancing and booze!
See, turning water into wine is one of the few useful things this father/son pair did. Life would be so much easier (and cheaper) if you had someone hanging around who could do that for you.
Hey, Mac, I’m going to go pour myself a glass of water. Can you call up your buddy and get him to change it into wine? This time of night a vintage port would be nice.
Tell him to get on it stat!
Hey can you guys answer me please? What is your basis for saying there is no God? If there is no absolute standard, then how can you say absolutely that there is no God?
Mac, this is a prime example of a logical fallacy called begging the question. You’re simply restating your premise as your conclusion. Sorry, that won’t fly around here.
To punish the wimminz for being all evil and stuff. I suppose.
I’m so glad all this bullshit is relatively foreign to me. What a fucking mind-fuck.
Hey Mac, what brand of Christian are you? Just curious. Not a Catholic, right?
Also, where does it say in the Bible that there’s a hell? Because I understand that not all Christians believe in it.
Think about the last comment I had I have to go. might be back on later to hear how much you hate me
Utter lack of evidence. Same reason I think there are no unicorns, leprechauns, chupacabras, Loch Ness monster, Champy, pixies, etc.
Do you believe that all the other gods people have worshiped throughout history actually exist? If not, why not?
I already did. There’s no evidence for any god, let alone your pet deity.
“We know that God exists because we know that God exists!”
You realize your logic can apply to absolutely anything imaginable, right, including a gigantic floating galactic dog anus.
Prove it.
Also your name is stupid.
Do you believe in Leprechauns, Mac?
You flatter yourself. I think you’re rather pathetic. But hatred? I reserve that for the heavy hitters. Like Pat Robertson. I do sincerely hate that guy.
Anyway, think about hiring a dominatrix instead next time, okay?
You have said nothing that requires thought.
I don’t know exactly where we atheists are getting our logic, but it’s pretty obvious it’s a better place than wherever you’re getting YOUR logic. Or your spelling. Or your punctuation. Or your internet skillz.
I’ve got a friendly suggestion, Mac. I’m sorry I called you troll, I really want to help you become a better person more worthy of the god’s favor you aspire to. Are you ready ? This is serious. The first thing you need to do is … go away and learn something before you reply again.
Learn how to think, learn how to write, learn how to use your fucking shift key (“i” gets capitalized, you ass licker) Oops, sorry about that last dig at your false modesty; I couldn’t resist.
But think how much good you’ll do for your lord’s cause if you can just write a little more convincingly …
Ready ? Then go !
WE’RE GOOD FOR HEARING YOUR ACTUAL ARGUMENTS RATHER THAN WORTHLESS HYPOTHETICALS ANY TIME YOU’RE GOOD AND READY!
We don’t hate you. You’re an idiot and we pity you for your idiocy. But, at least as far as we’ve seen, you aren’t actively evil like your buddy Eric and especially his father, convicted felon Kent.
Mac:
No Evidence. Lose the crap about standards, about absolute this, absolute that. Put some fuckin’ evidence on the table or be gone.
Mac:
Give me some evidence for god*, then I’ll consider it a possibility. Until then, having nearly 100% certainty is fine by me.
I ask you again: How do you know the Muslims are wrong?
Sally:
Me too.
*He could pop over for a cup of tea or a beer or something.
You’d like that, wouldn’t you.
Lol Christians and their damn martyr complexes. Also their propensity for spouting nonsense, then calling it hate when people disagree with their nonsense.
Since there is no deity, there can’t be any hell.
for both is non-existence….Which means you have to supply conclusive physical evidence for either…
Just as I thought. No answers to my questions, no port, no proof of god.
Ah well, guess I’ll have to settle for a glass of armagnac.
Mac:
No one hates you, Mac. That would require a depth of feeling. You don’t come close to inspiring any depth of feeling at all. Look for fuel to feed your persecution complex somewhere else.
Sorry, sorry, I apologize unreservedly for putting you (and any other) rational human asslicker into company with the godbotting worm Mac.
Enjoy the dance !
Is there anything in that statement? It turns the presupposition that a god is the source of knowledge into the suppressed premise of an enthymeme, and stated or unstated, it still begs the question.
Nevermind, I just realized that I’m trying to understand. I’ll stick with the machine hypothesis.
What if you’re in space?
actually, no matter where you are, you’re falling.
though it might often be difficult to tell which way you are falling.
..and I know YOU know this, but for our ignorant friend here…
no wait, for Mac, trying to explain this would be like Pearls Before Swine… In SPACE…
Mac:
You do have a shift key, yes? Does your religion forbid you from using it regularly?
I’m in this for the lulz, sweet pea. In order to hate you, I would first have to care about you.
has any of these the-idiots actually defined what “God” IS, yet?
because without a working definition, there really can’t even be a discussion.
frankly, I’m 100% sure they don’t even have a definition themselves.
Audley:
I’d like to know why Mac doesn’t believe in Mithra? After all, Mithra predated Mac’s god and he was born of a virgin on December 25th, he was considered to be both human and divine, he was buried in a tomb and resurrected three days later, his principal festival taking place in what was later to become Easter, Sunday was considered his day and the Lord’s day, yada, yada, yada.
Because I’m not an idiot.
I must say, after months of virulent misogynists who were nevertheless relatively intelligent, dealing with these simple-minded godbots is a refreshing walk in the park.
on another note…
It’s Guy Fawkes day here in Hobbiton.
With all the protests happening all around the world, I would have thought there would be some linkage to Guy Fawkes, but I don’t see it anywhere.
interesting.
What I mean is how do you know anything if you don’t know everything. how do you know that there isn’t something that contradicts what you think you know in what you don’t know?
If you have 1% of all knowledge, how can you say that there isn’t something in the 99% that disproves what you believe?
Caine:
Oh, awesome. I’ll admit that I don’t know all that much about Mithra, but now I’m gonna do some reading.
If it’s a matter of just picking and choosing a god*, I’ll take Odin. Dude gave up an eye for knowledge– that’s pretty fucking bad ass.
*Mac’s argument sounds very arbitrary to me.
What would happen if these idiots ever fucking read any of the dozens of standard responses to Pascal’s Wager?
here’s an entire list of them:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1789
Audley, this is some quick reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_mysteries
Quite a few people have speculated that christianity grew out of mithraism.
I should stop going to hot tub parties, I miss all the fun.
So nice to see the “God exists and must be worshipped because the Bible says so! The Bible is true because it is the Word of god!” circular logic again. It was only missing from the thread for 200 posts.
..or hell, even bothered to read the wiki, which already contains the classic responses, including Voltaire’s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Criticism
You don’t know everything. You know nothing but presuppositional arguments, which are always wrong. You can’t define the results in your premise.
It is up to you to PROVE with solid and conclusive evidence your imaginary deity exists. All you do is make well refuted claims of stupidity.
@Caine
And Mithra killed an alien attempting to establish itself as a god with a sword.
((Doctor Who is not always a good source of historical knowledge))
Mac:
Oh, fuck you. You don’t even know what the term “gravity” means; you’ve got no right to lecture us about “knowing everything”.
Are you saying that you know everything? Or that your religion does? Did Christianity give us vaccines? Nuclear power? Flight? Computers?
You don’t even have the 1% of knowledge that the rest of us have.
One more time: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT MUSLIMS ARE WRONG?
If the 1% included say, an age of the earth inconsistent with the god in question then there would have to be one big doozy of additional info else where. And if all other info gained points away from that…
Look there may be *a* god…but your god is already ruled out.
Ing:
Mmmph. I find the bull killing to be fairly impressive and that didn’t come from Doctor Who! :D
You don’t understand how science and evidence work, do you Cupcake?
There are no Here’s the truth, 100% in science. It’s all by preponderance of the evidence. And 99% is pretty fucking strong.
Thanks for conceding that science is right 99% of the time, by the way!
Thanks, Caine!
Mac,
You might have an argument if Christianity were the only religion ever, but even then you’d still have to provide evidence for your deity.
How do you know that Allah isn’t the one true god? How do you know that dragons and unicorns don’t (and didn’t) exist?
The bible describes the world as being flat– do you believe that, too? Or are you simply picking and choosing what you’d like to believe?
*training mode*
I’ve always had trouble trying to categorize this type of piece-of-shit statement. The first thing I think is that it’s a strawman, since what we’re really arguing is that it’s far more likely that God does not exist, given the evidence.
But then I can never shrug off the feeling that there’s an element of well-poisoning in there, too. Because at some level, the idea of not having ‘absolutes’ can still be conflated with being a ‘relativist’ or a ‘nihilist’ – terms which are both viewed with suspicion in the society that we live in.
Meh. It’s just funny to me how someone like Mac, who has the apparent IQ of a turnip, can still develop a relatively nuanced piece of disingenuousness – even if only subconcsiously.
*/training mode*
Bull? No it was a race of aliens that set themselves up as gods and then psychically drain civilizations of their life force as planetary parasites.
I have faith in Tom Baker
Wait, I recognize this, it’s from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
You can’t claim that a known entity is present in an unknown zone, as that would make the zone known as well!
If the 99% is unknown, then any ‘somethings’ in it are unknown as well, and you can’t logically claim that your imaginary deity is amongst them.
Hmmm. Gee, that’s hard. I don’t know everything, so how is it possible that I know anything. Yup, that’s a real brain-twister. It’s like when you’re teaching kids: you have to dump all the knowledge directly into their brains via internet download. There’s no other way for them to learn stuff, you know, bit by bit, step by step, starting with simple addition and progressing to long division and eventually differential equations. Nope, it’s all or nothing.
*gasp*
Infidel! How dare you profane the True and Most Holy One, Peter Davison?!
Ing:
Aaaaah, Tom Baker. Now he would be an interestin’ god.
Thanks for conceding that science is right 99% of the time, by the way!
actually this is one of those cases where I can say that “science” is actually right 100% of the time.
provided the person employing it knows the right question.
Hey, Mac, here’s your chance to shine. Show us WHAT YOU KNOW and HOW YOU KNOW it !
How do YOU know god talks to you – or how do you know god speaks to you through that bible ? How do YOU know it’s not the devil ? How do YOU know it’s not just your brain fooling itself ?
Tell us. Tell me, please, I’m asking nicely. And if you’re right about your god, there’s probably some kind of reward in it for you if you persuade an atheist like me with your reason. Now’s your chance !
I have faith in Tom Baker
I have faith in Bob.
slackers unite!
They are all paths to the one true god.
I just noticed something (sorry if it’s been pointed out earlier):
Read that sentence carefully.
Mac is suggesting that anything we don’t know contradicts what we do know.
I mean, seriously:
“I know where 4 of my 5 friends are hiding, but I don’t know where the last one is hiding. Therefore by Mac’s argument, I actually don’t know where the first four are hiding.”
Or am I just reading that wrong?
Classic. +1 Internets.
Seriously, though, what’s with the epistemology class tonight? Did I miss the lecture announcement? I would have called a few acquaintances if I had known there was a remedial lesson on offer for them.
Mac, you’re a gem. You’re not interested in an answer or a discussion at all. If you were, your strings of words ending in punctuation marks might actually make some sense. Most of the time we refer people who say “god revealed the truth to me” to professional help. I think you’re way past that stage.
Mr Fire:
Pretty much.
Although, I think Mac was trying to get us to say that we don’t have all the answers, therefore God! Or something.
Wow, Mac really puts the bot in godbot.
He’s got his script and he’s sticking to it.
Oh!
Now we’re talking! Mac believes in a god of revelry!
here’s the real question for Mac:
why do you feel the need to use unnecessary punctuation?
is it a REALLY important question to you?
OTOH, if your goal is to use every method available to make yourself look like an idiot, then carry on, you’re doing fine.
Yep, which is why those fucking presuppositionalist worms are wrong at the very beginning of their so-called “basis of knowledge” argument. And since they get the beginning totally wrong, everything else that follows is guaranteed to just be the frosting of idiocy on their stupid cake.
You’d think not a one of them had ever seen anything in the real world, to judge by their flaming ignorance of everyday human development.
Now we’re talking! Mac believes in a god of revelry!
are we sure it’s not Ravelry?
I figured that’s what they were trying to say, but felt like holding them to the high standards of their inerrant and unambiguous sacred text :-)
Mr Fire:
Dionysus?
Or am I just reading that wrong?
I read it as him assuming we have appreciated less than 1% of the actual knowledge that is totally available in the Universe.
and because there is so much out there still to know, he assumes that what we already know will likely be overturned by what we don’t.
but then, he contradicts himself by recognizing gravity as a law.
but then, he doesn’t understand what a law even is.
Oh fuck it, can’t we just say he’s projecting absolute inane ignorance and that this explains his entire behavior?
Nope, you’re reading it right. Congratulations on picking up a piece of the Hovind-sponsored insanity that the rest of us missed.
But I wonder if maybe Mac didn’t study his Hovind flashcards enough. I think I’ve seen that “99% of what you don’t know” argument phrased a little differently, somewhere … Mac doesn’t seem too capable, you know, of getting the fine details right.
The fact I don’t know everything is no proof I know nothing. My knowledge is incomplete, not non-existent.
Heh, I’m afrayed I have to disagree with you.
If it was Dionysus, he’d be inviting us round for raucous revelry and vinous dissipation, not droning on about absolute knowledge.
I accept the “existence of god” in the same sense and to the same degree that I accept that some children have monsters under their beds.
Could it be that the monster is the larval form of god?
Agent Smith:
True. If it wasn’t just a spelling mistake, our little Macky would be so much more fun.
I’m disappointed in one respect. erichovind, Mac, SyeTenb and the other godbots didn’t give us any of the sophistimacated theology. All we got was inane questions, presuppositions, and question begging.
Questions for the Bible fools, based on psychology:
1. Its been shown in studies that having your heart rate elevated causes you to rate the attractiveness of someone higher than if you are calm. This includes fear, such as rides, horror movies, or say… sleeping with someone else’s wife, with the odds you might get caught doing it. Why would “god” make humans more likely to find attraction, and thus love, under such stress, rather than via peaceful circumstances?
2. It seems, from other studies, that giving is a great thing, for the giver. Oddly enough, small, short term, items, like flowers, or candy, or say, a meal, produce an increase in happiness for the receiver, though to much less a degree. However, memory of such things doesn’t last as long as it does for the giver. But, even worse, if the item is something long lasting, such as a new phone, or a jacket, or say, a place for a poor person to sleep, the “long term” exposure to such things degrades there value, such that, over time, unless reminded, the person that received them can end up devaluing them, getting bored with them, and even forgetting how gave it to them. Why should this be the case, if god created us?
3. On other matters of *specifically* charity, if you have a donation box that suggests that every dollar counts, you will, as has been tested many times, receive “fewer” donations that if you wrote, “every cent counts”. Direct donation is also felt more than donating to someone else, who spends the money to help others, like say, the government, or a large charity, even if those large organizations can reach more people, easier, and thus provide more help.
Why would go make people so that they donate less, if you even imply, however indirectly, that there is a minimum amount they should consider giving? Worse, why would they refuse to give money, just because the people that want it will use it indirectly, so its less “personal”, despite the fact that their smaller, voluntary, donations to people that can’t possibly help everyone that needs such help, is valued more? Shouldn’t, if god created man, it be the opposite, such that knowing how much is needed “encourages” you to meet that goal, and knowing that everyone possible will be helped, and not merely a few, would be considered more moral than being picky about who gets helped, and by whom?
And those are just three cases where people act this way, regardless of faith, upbringing, social status, or any other factors. If there is a universal moral system, why does *everyone* fail at it, in such basic, and irrational, ways, no matter how religious they are?
Bonus points if you don’t invoke the idiocy of “original sin”, while ignoring the part where I mention that ****everyone**** does these things, not just the unrighteous.
I mean, since the “argument” being made is that somehow the bible explains things better than biology, there should be some logical, rational, explanations, from the Bible, for why almost nothing any priest, guru, or self help expert, on the damn planet has ever said “works” to solve problems, or explain how people really think, right? So, lets see some passages, explaining, for example, why watching sitcoms is the same as watching a blank TV, and both worthless at lowering blood pressure, but watching animals does. Or, why a mechanical dog seems to help heart patients survive just as much longer as a real one, but a cat doesn’t? I mean, its supposed to have “all” the answers right, and evolution **none** of them (we will, for the sake of argument, ignore PZ grinding his teeth over possible “just so” stories, for purposes of these questions).
Heh, I’m afrayed I have to disagree with you.
I’m knitting my brows in frustration at your response.
Trolls roll in. Trolls roll out. Can’t explain that.
—
Every hierarchical structure in the U.S. seems to get invaded by abusive evangelists to some level. I once had a professor who required all students to purchase his mathematics textbook that contained a ‘proof’ of God.
In the case of something phenomenal like a god that not only completely circumvents the laws of physics but also logic itself, routinely, and is supposedly still communicating with billions of people on a regular basis, you’d think we’d have found some sort of empirical evidence of this god after THOUSANDS OF YEARS of constant searching.
Instead we get vague ramblings from people who might as well be hearing whispers of shoemaker elves in the night, who can only argue their case through ignorance or outright deception.
Isn’t it strange, Mac, that any time knowledge is made about reality, it’s science that does it and not religion? Can you name a single advancement in our knowledge of reality where science said one thing and religion said another, and it was religion that turned out to be correct?
LOL
do you recall what it was?
…something to do with Descartes, I’ll wager.
Standard 2nd law of thermodynamics stuff. He’s spammed copies of it in numerous places, and it’s been roundly taken apart, both mathematically and philosophically. He’s a pretty well-known creationist loon, one of the “real scientists” that gets trotted out as not believing in evolution.
@Eric Hovind: Try this one, Eric – “I’m as big a thief and liar as my daddy, yet I’m not in prison, therefore God!”
You might get a few atheists to go “Hmmmm?” for a microsecond.
Aw. Poor Mac.
You’re not following the chain all the way through — and you’re not seeing the weak link.
How do you “know” that an alleged God has allegedly revealed his alleged word? Not from God. You heard it or read it from other people — frail, imperfect human beings — that the word existed, and was from God. You’re basing your claim that God exists, and has revealed his word, because you trust, without ever questioning it, your faith in your fellow-worshippers who indoctrinated you, and in yourself.
You’ve become an absolutely certain religious fanatic, based on nothing more than imperfect humans claiming that God exists and has given his word, and you putting your faith in imperfect humans and their claims.
Infidel! How dare you profane the True and Most Holy One, Peter Davison?!
Pertwee is rising from the unholy depths.
10 HOW DO U KNOW THAT?
20 THEREFORE GOD
30 GOTO 10
?SYNTAX ERROR
READY
I don’t have a ton of time to read the thread, so could someone give me a godbot quote to rip into please?
Rey Fox pretty much summed it up there. No meat to this troll.
There is but one true Hartnell, and Tennant is his prophet.
I keep missing the good ones! For some reason, someone always manages to nail down the latest godbot before I can get here.
Thanks ! We’ll keep that one in reserve in case Eric or one of the Eric-bots comes back.
Atticus Dogsbody: Very, very amusing. And potentially useful
Stupid logic happy fun fun time!
The claim is made that God is a necessary presupposition to knowledge. As long as we’re using stupid word games:
1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god exists in all worlds
2. It is possible to explain a world through natural causes
3. It is necessary that if possible world X arose naturally that there was no divine interference
4. Therefore, it is possibly true that there is no god in world X
5. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that there is no god in any world
6. Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that there is no god in any world
7. Therefore no god exists.
@Mac #various:
Sounds like quite the party!
Ahem, that sounds like a mind-blowing partay-experience!
Eureka! God is Dionysus!
vltava: If only, if only…
If ever there were evidence that childhood indoctrination causes irreversible brain damage—this thread would be it. I used to think that we all have the same mental hardware, cause I didn’t like the idea that I was smarter than other people (it felt like a slippery slope into discrimination). Then I read a story in college written by parents slowly realizing their adopted son suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome, and would never be capable of what most of us find trivial. It’s a sad truth that some adults just will not ever get it.
That said, I find believers fascinating; they do the most impressive mental gymnastics to fit their iron-aged goat herder superstitions into the modern world, it’s remarkable. If any of you believers read this, and would like to meet me in person to discuss your beliefs, (I live in New England) I’d be plenty willing to meet up with you some time. But be aware I am not looking for god—I looked and the odds that I missed it are worse than the odds that we discover the earth is not in fact roughly spherical.
This sort of thing really scares the hell out of me.
More so because I don’t live in the US. I’m Australian, and as some may know, we are and always have been close allies with the US in your various military escapades in far-flung and dusty/steaming hot/otherwise unpleasant places. We were in Vietnam, the Gulf #1 and more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. We share a lot; democracy, freedom, Big Macs and a degree of ambivalence in our relationship with England (our Poms, your Limeys.)
What we seem to be sharing less and less as time goes by is belief. So, what’s up with these rampant idiots who think they have a direct line to God? I mean, we’ve all heard of the Scopes trial over here, but we presumed you had these nuts under control. Now one of them seems to have his finger on the button.
I have a proposal. Let us join the USA. We could become another six or so states, and we’d get a vote in who becomes the Prez. Overnight the Bible Belt would be countered by 20 million DIY Dean Swifts who have elected atheists and agnostics to our highest office more than once.
Let’s not leave it at Australia. Why not add in Sweden? Norway? Hey, how about France?
Conversely, you could sell all the states below the Mason-Dixon line to Iran. Rick Perry could be Ahmadinejad’s new deputy! He has more in common with that moronic little prick than nearly anyone else.
Ummm… Tony, your timestamp put you at 19:08 Australian EST, you shouldn’t be drunk yet, it’s a Saturday evening… Unless you’ve been to the races (another win to Black Caviar. Wow!), then you have a right to be drunk.
As an Aussie, I can tell you now that your proposal will be given less shrift that Mr. Swift’s.
I’m generally in favor of this. Give the rational folks who have the misfortune to be stuck in the south some relocation aid, the ones who don’t have any close friends or family elsewhere in the north can re-colonize Detroit …
You know how Abraham Lincoln is always thought of as the greatest US president ? What a mistake. If he had just let the south go when they wanted to, what an improvement that would have been for the remaining nation.
The funny thing is, you can also see how it would have benefitted the Confederacy if they had been able to leave without a fight. I don’t know how much longer slavery could have held out as an institution and I don’t know how many more lives it would have destroyed than the sharecropping and Jim Crow system which replaced slavery after they lost the war. I do know that part of their reactionary fundamentalism is a result of the fact that the former Confederacy was deliberately kept backward by the northern industrial capitalists. Who knows how much they might have progressed if they’d had self-determination and had only local corruption, not New York banker corruption, to deal with.
But Texas, well Texas (plus New Mexico and Arizona) should just be given back to Mexico. We stole the territory from them, stupidest thing we ever did. Give it back !
Oh, just to clarify matters: Any posts under this nym in the last eight to twelve hours should not me attributed to me. I did leave my desktop open to others, and it is entirely plausible that someone else has posted under my name.
On a completely unrelated note, beware the midori-champagne cocktail. Yes, it is a pretty green color. Yes, a true drinker should fear no liqueur. Nevertheless, I would argue, if I didn’t have a crippling headache, that the midori cocktail is actually proof that not only does god exist, but it hates us. Or, maybe it just hates me. In any case, please pretend that I didn’t post anything before. And also, that this message wasn’t posted either, being unnecessary.
I wish I could remember the air traffic controller’s wonderful line from “Airplane” correctly, since it communicates to the nth degree my intellectual, emotional, and moral opinion of these sad, stupid, empty, fear-filled and rather evil-minded Xians.
It goes something like:
“30,000 feet! 5,000 feet! 18,000 feet! He’s all OVER the place! What an asshole!”
I personally believe I am a just a brain in a jar being fed stimulus to make me believe the outside world is true. I have no idea who is doing this (I bet they’re wearing white coats, though) or why but prove me wrong.
justsomescotsbloke,
Sorry, you’re not wrong. I’m the guy in the white coat, with the wild fringe of hair and manic laugh.
justsomescotsbloke #615
Brains are kept in vats, not jars. Therefore you are wrong.
To all others who tried to witness to atheists on this site:
You are all incompetent idiots who make all of creationists and Christians look bad! You should all do your effing research before trying to play with the big boys here, because currently you don’t even know what are you dealing with!
This is how you disprove evolution: http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Page08.xhtml
The main page of that link is just an introductory site to science and logic. Read it, think about it, take what is good to heart, discard the rest! Then start working in the field of biology to disprove it correctly!
As for god, how dare you! How dare you, mere humans, think you know anything of god!
Nope, this is how you disprove evolution: Peer reviewed scientific literature. Science is only refuted by more science. Funny how creationists never show any real science…
@619
Thanks for the link to the Northwestern University Library, but I’m afraid the books there overwhelmingly support evolution.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
I think that you should really read the link Mr. McKoy provided. I know, because I provided the link to the same site a week before. He probably took it from there ;)
Right, they are the peer reviewed scientific literature, the only thing that can refute evolution. More real science is required. Religion cannot refute science, and evolution is a science. Prove otherwise from science.
Oh, and I forgot to add creationism and idiotic design are religious ideas. So says the US court system, along with science. Prove otherwise from those sources…
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
Seriously, read the darn link. I posted it here before, post number 3.
Several comments ago Esteleth wrote “Oh: and for the record O ye holy Pharisees, I’m not an atheist.”
Esteleth, you’re certainly not a Bible thumper. I was just curious, if you’re not an atheist (also known as a normal person), what are you? Deist? Wishy-washy agnostic? Muslim terrorist? Just wondering, thanks.
Mak @525
You just invented a new religion!
The books are pro-reality. Creationists are anti-reality.
I don’t click on links to creationist literature. Mind numbing drivel. Explain what I would see…
Nerd, you’re missing out. The link is good.
Nerd, the link isn’t to a creationist site. The link is to an article on a science site explaining how evolution is falsifiable and creationism isn’t. Here’s the introduction:
Yeah, creationtheory.org is a great site and actually helped me shed the last vestigial bits of my theism.
Especially the hate mail section. Accommodationist he is not. :-)
Oh, NoR’s being an obstinate jackass? What a surprise.
OK, but from the link:
eh, not so true. There are some spectacular examples of just such ‘branch-jumping’ now known (i.e. horizontal gene transfer). There’s a seaslug that has picked up many of the genes for photosynthesis, for example, and tunicates picked up the cellulose-synthesis pathway from algae. There aren’t many of these cases, but there are a few; however of course they in no way ‘disprove evolution’.
Okay, I’ll click on it later. Typical multi-tasking on Saturday morning. Next up, more coffee…
#628: somebody has not gone to the pharyngula post I linked to.
#633: Give him a break, the site was not updated since 2007 ;).I think that
explains
but I definitely need to do more research.
#628: Here’s relink, in case the first one doesn’t work for whatever reason: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2011/10/20/why-i-am-an-atheist-samyogita-hardikar/
Just as a minor pedantic point. There is indeed gravity in space. A spaceship and its contents are falling towards the earth due to gravity. But, due to the velocity they have at a tangent to that, the actual distance they have from the earth remains the same. And of course since the people inside are falling at the same rate as the capsule it feels as if they are not falling since their positions with respect to the capsule and each other don’t change.
It’s also the reason the earth doesn’t fly off into interstellar space as it is constrained by the gravity of the sun.
None of which of course makes any of the nonsense spouted by Mac and the other Hovindbots any more sensible.
If X then Y does not preclude if Z then Y, and certainly does not lead to if Y then X.
And any conclusions from any logical sequence is only as good as its axioms. And Mac and co., since there is no evidence for your god, certainly none that can be distinguished from lots of mythology from many many cultures and a heck of a lot of deliberate fiction, except possibly the writing being worse quality, then you’re not going to convince anyone here. And if you actually are hearing voices then I’d recommend a visit to a psychiatrist.
Ariaflame,
Just a minor pedantic point.
Don’t you mean “orbit” rather than “space”?
Most of space is well beyond the Earth’s gravitational infludence.
Damn, I mean “influence”, not “infludence”!
PZ, can’t you manage an edit function for posts, same as Richard’s site has? :o)
I think it would make sense to posit a general rule of thumb:
If a micro-organism can generally be found in close proximity to the gonadal cells of a metazoän, there is a small but non-zero chance that genes from the microörganism will be incorporated into the genome of the gonadal cells and be passed on to the next generation of the metazoan as a horizontal gene transfer event.
The sea-slug incorporates algal chloroplasts (descendants of cyanobacteria) into its own cells — itself a wonderful and strange symbiosis. So the finding of some genes for photosysnthesis in sea-slugs is not entirely unexpected.
Another example not mentioned above is the fruit-fly with an entire Wolbachia genome embedded in its own. Wolbachia bacteria infect fruit-fly gonads (and the gonads of other insects), so it isn’t quite so improbable as all that.
On the other hand, an example of horizontal gene transfer that would be very surprising in the absence of intelligent intervention is green fluorescent protein (from jellyfish) suddenly showing up in fish, mammals (like rabbits, and kittehs), and plants.
Of course, in that case, the explanation is indeed intelligent intervention in the form of human genetic engineers finding GFP (and related fluorescent proteins) useful as a gene expression marker.
A putative omniscient invisible person with magical superpowers would not need markers in the first place, I would nearly think.
Don’t you people ever test your own logic, before embarrassing yourselves in public?
Evidently not..
—- Here are some equally valid arguments that you may find familiar:
The proof of magical space leprechauns is that without magical space leprechauns, you can’t know anything. That is my premise.
Also, fun fact; I don’t know the difference between a premise and a conclusion.
~
Logical arguments are logically impossible without magical space leprechauns. Any intellectually honest person who has thought about it must admit this. And if you want to argue against the logic of my claim, I’ll ignore you, because I pre-suppose that leprechauns are somehow responsible for logic, and since you don’t believe in them, this is an excuse to ignore you.. for some reason. I’m not sure why, but it apparently is, as that’s what I’m doing. It’s a childish game, really. Play along, won’t you?
~
Without magical space leprechauns we know nothing and have no ability to reason.
~
Where do you get your morality from as a Theist Atomist?
~
Seeing as you think tectonic plate theory is true this means you have a standard of truth correct?
~
Mr. Mammalian Vertebrate, you know that magical space leprechauns live in my shoes just as well as we do!
~
The very concept of evidence is evidence that leprechauns exist.
~
The very concept of proof presupposes magical space leprechauns. Proof requires logic, knowledge, and truth, none of which can be accounted for outside of magical space leprechauns. (And I believe they somehow can be accounted for with them.. but I won’t say how.)
~
We could debate evidentially all day long, and you would never be convinced; for even if we could prove Cthulhu’s existence to you, then you would not worship him. We should get to the very basis of knowledge first. We baselessly assert that Cthulhu is the beginning of knowledge. Without Cthulhu, we cannot know anything. We say therefore the Necronomicon is true because the human men who wrote it said that they were inspired by Cthulhu, and we have faith in the words of these men. You may consider it circular to say that the Necronomicon is true because it says it’s true, but where does the basis of logic come from that has defined circular arguments specifically? Unless you can prove it wasn’t from Cthulhu, than you have no basis to argue anything and I can keep ignoring you with these childish games.
~
Person A: “I’m reasonably certain that Santa Claus is a myth.”
Person B: “Are you absolutely certain about that?”
Person A: “Nope, just reasonably certain. As close as one can reasonably be, but not further. Maybe 99.9999% certain.. but not absolutely.”
Person B: “Are you absolutely certain about your reasonable certainty?”
Person A: “..no. I’m reasonably certain about my reasonable certainty.”
Person B: “Or so you say! But are you ABSOLUTELY certain about THAT?”
Person A: “..What’s with the circles? Why are you asking the same question over and over even though you’ve gotten your response a dozen times? I’m reasonably certain and can justify my reasonable certainty, and you’re ABSOLUTELY certain even though you can’t justify ANY certainty and no one can EVER justify absolute certainty. This is a childish game.”
Person B: “But are you absolutely certain about that?” *troll face*
Person A: ಠ_ಠ
—
In conclusion, I feel like we’re talking to children. It’s like one of those kids shows where some kid just learned about reverse psychology and tries to use it on all the adults, who just roll their eyes, but the kids think they’re being clever. Seriously this is sad.
Also I loved Sastra’s much more eloquent post:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2011/11/04/speaking-of-bullying/comment-page-1/#comment-134716
My fucking internet went down just as I hit “submit” and of course my comment got lost. I’ll attempt to re-create it, but I’m sure I’ll forget something.
Many Bible-thumpers (creationist and otherwise) do have a very childish view. Such and such is true because the Sky-Daddy says so!
A lot of the appeal of the Bible-thumping creationist viewpoint is that it offers certainty. They don’t need to worry, to wonder, or to doubt. They submit, they get taken care of. That is one thing the religious do well – they take care of each other. Of course, you must “deserve” to be taken care of.
A lot of the Bible-thumpers are very authoritarian. There’s only one way to properly live, and you must live that way. Casting about for a quote to sum up their view, I landed with a Dune quote: “A place for every man and every man in his place.”
That is what it boils down to for them. When a
personman (women belong to men, of course) is born, the course of his life is set out for him. He must live that life, submitting to the those who outrank him and controlling those below him. In exchange for not deviating, he will be taken care of in life and after death gain the opportunity to gloriously submit to God. Add the Calvinist thought that infects many Bible-thumpers to this, it gets even stricter and more emphatic.They fear people who resist, especially those who live successful and happy lives outside of this system, because it exposes the flaws in it. We must be brought to heel! Otherwise, then the reason why they accepted the crushing of their dreams, the reason they hurt those they love, the reason they submitted to authority they knew to be illegitimate is empty They did it for nothing except pride.
FTFY
I’d give a lot to hear what Sye TenBruggencate and Eric Hovind are saying to each other about yesterday’s adventure among the heathens.
Are they proud they pulled off their invasion with such evident discipline ? Happy with the training they gave their godbots ? Worried about casualties ?
I’d definitely give something to figure out how Eric Hovind is going to spin our words to make money for himself. You know the little crook could have done it just for laughs, but that would be so out of character, there has to be a financial gain in there somehow.
Sye TenBruggencate, on the other hand, is the megalomaniac scumbag who is “above” such a crass motivation. Gotta wonder what got him jazzed up enough to participate. It’s not like he’s a stranger to Pharyngula, either.
Such a Dowty…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dowty
I have enjoyed conversing with all of you. Once again, I leave you with the question, how do you know what you know? How can you be certain of anything?
The fucking arrogance of this illiterate scumbag is astonishing.
How do we know anything? You’re the one who is so fucking stupid you base all you can charitably be deemed to know on a manual full of how to live a worthless scumbag life of stupidity, inconsistency, bigotry, greed, lust, theft, rapine, murder and genocide.
Fuck you.
You’re not fit to ask anyone what they know–because you know absolutely fuck all, you moronic piece of shit.
Open a book besides your Hebrew scumbag fairy tale, for once in your stupid life, you dishonest cabbage with legs.
IOW, Bravo.
As for god, how dare you! How dare you, mere humans, think you know anything of god!
whereas you, Mr. Milquetoast, have a personal relationship of course!
God is that which will kick our ass for laughing at them. The details are unimportant.
Not caught up on this thread (and pretty sure I ain’t gonna try)
But…
wasn’t there a promise made, some time ago, that if anyone quoted a certain Bible verse, they’d be summarily banned?
Seems to me I remember that being an offense to our host.
Somebody wanna parse the 600+ comments and round up the offenders?
:-)
:-P
Jesus, tapdancing Christ! Why have allowed one troll to derail this topic for hundreds of replies. Just ignore him. The original topic is much more interesting
Wrong question. (It’s recursive word salad that means nothing).
The proper question is:
How do you JUSTIFY what you believe?.
Wrong question. Very wrong question. Asking this question is probably the root cause of most if not all the suffering humanity has ever endured. I could even go Vorlon here and say “Never ask that question“!
The proper question is:
How CONFIDENT are you of something, and what does this mean for what you plan to do?.
The whole thing was a stealth attack designed to distract us from criticizing what they REALLY want to be left free to do – bully children.
At last! A characteristic potentially deserving of worship! If it was good enough.
Dear nonexistent God, did they really start out with the assumption that God exists to prove that God exists? Look up “Begging the Question,” morons.
I know things because I have a brain. No god, goddess, or leprechaun required.
Back to Joe’s comment up near the top:
Good news! I hope that you have lots of proselytizing e-mails to show.
Even if thinking required a diety, what in FSM’s name makes anyone think it has to be that particular deity? Look up False Dichotomy.
Godbot:
Let’s assume for a moment that you mean there is no God so that your statement makes sense.
I say, “But the wise man says it right out loud!”
Now I’ve got Rock Me Sexy Jesus as an earworm.
Oh, and about creationtheory.org’s third point: we have found rare instances where a different nucleotide has sneaked into the genome. In fact, caffeine can get into the string and cause conscription errors. We’re up to eight known nucleotides now, I think. But the overwhelming majority of living species use only the four most common nucleotides, which is overwhelming evidence for common descent from a single ancestral population of single-celled organisms.
Speaking of bullies… pzmyers. Makes a good living at it, actually.
Wow, kham! Please explain how that is so. Also, kham? K ham. Ken Ham? Subtle. Yeah right.
Please still your head up your ass. You are not ready for the light.
Speaking of bullies… pzmyers. Makes a good living at it, actually.
hey, I know, you should charge him under Michigan’s new law!
fuckwit.
I have turned a “ck” into a “ll”. Make the mental change as needed.
kham
Please show the court where PZ Myers bullied you.
Citation needed, just like with any idjit spouting idjitcy. Put up, or fade into the bandwidth like a typical delusional fool.
Oh c’mon.
Didn’t you see that student thread?
The horrible PROFESSOR Myers makes his poor students come to his office and speak to him in person!!!!11!!!
The big meany.
Wow, a lot of the Godbot arguments in this thread reminder me of the old Elisa chatterbot program. Same things said several different ways, often with leading questions.
One piece of advise I would give these people. If someone offers to give you a Turing test, don’t take it. You’ll fail.
As I understand matters mass bends space-time. The result being that everything is downhill (to wax poetic) from everything else. So If you and Mac were the only two masses in the entire universe, and you were 1,000 light years apart, you would start falling towards each other at an accelerating velocity.
What this means is, as an asteroid nears the Earth both Earth and the asteroid accelerate towards each other at an ever increasing speed. Depending on how the asteroid approaches Earth and asteroid end up accelerating or decelerating in their respective orbits.
That’s how I understand matters, I could be wrong.
As to God, creationism, and the Bible, as I understand it the evidence is strongly against it and I have no proof to the contrary.
Finally, what we don’t know might contradict what we do know, but since we don’t know we can say nothing either way.
Well, yeah, pretty much as I understand it, also.
Except for the bit about “downhill” which isn’t waxing poetic, it’s waxing dirtbound.
The reason we think of gravity as “downhill” is just from our poor perspective, big Earth, tiny bodies, dirtbound.
As you went on to say, gravity in space is “towards” centers of mass (or “inward” with respect to some orbit, not “downhill”). There is just no valid point of reference in space on which to stand and claim something is falling DOWN. Or falling UP, for that matter.
Mac was wrong about that bogus certainty of universal “down-ness”, as he was told early on.
I’m saddened that it doesn’t look like humanity is going to be able to escape our gravity well and get a truer perspective of space – and relativistic time dilation – and gravity – out there. So maybe there’s no point in working on the correct vocabulary to describe gravity in space, I mean if we’ll never be there, who cares ?
Well, I care.
Mac were the only two masses in the entire universe, and you were 1,000 light years apart, you would start falling towards each other at an accelerating velocity.
no…
you would experience the forces TRYING to make you fall towards one another, but it would also have to overcome the inertia of the objects involved to actually make them move towards the relative center of gravity.
for objects very far apart, gravity is insufficient to overcome inertia.
btw, the “falling” description of objects affected by gravity is based on Einstein’s original concept of the curvature of space-time.
I’m sure you recall seeing all those 3-d graphs of space as a plane warped by relative masses?
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/grwarp.gif
that’s why the word “falling” is so often used.
void main()
{
while(1)
{
printf(“GodDidIt”);
}
}
This is such a stupid argument. If you retreat into sophistry, you retreat your OWN point into po-mo uncertainty. You don’t gain any ground, you just move everyone down one floor.
Eric: Aha! But I’m sure I can beat you in this foot race if we move the starting point back 30 yards!?
Ing: You want a head start?
Eric: No! We all will move back 30 yards! Now I’m SURE to win!
This is my answer to you: I don’t fucking care if there is a hell.
What, exactly am I supposed to do with that knowledge once I have it?
Either I do things because they are right, regardless of the cost to me, or I do things because they benefit me, regardless of the harm to others.
Is hell supposed to encourage me to choose the former over the latter? How? That seems inherently contradictory to me, to threaten people with harm in order to coerce them into doing what is right over what is easier for them. And how is that being moral and worthy of not going to hell, if you are only doing it to avoid pain?
How do you know that there is know hell
what’s “Know Hell”.
is that like a condition of pure ignorance?
#670
And what’s stopping it? In effect space time is sloping towards the other mass, and there is no force stopping the first mass from sliding, in effect, towards the second.
An object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force. The sloping space-time acts as a force, thus putting the object into motion.
Note that so long as there is a single mass anywhere within a universe, the space-time of that universe cannot be flat strictly speaking. It may be flat if you round off the math, but still be bent to some infitisimal degree that would still suffice to put objects into motion given time.
That is to say, that if you had two masses all alone in a universe, and they were placed at absolute rest within that universe at some distance apart, the degree to which they bent space-time would act as the equivalent of a force on the other, putting it into motion. There being nothing, no force acting to keep them at rest. Inertia is not a force, inertia is a condition, a condition which would be overshadowed, so to speak, by gravity.
It seems to me, and my reasonably unphilosophical mind, that the question of a god existing or not can be bypassed altogether.
I simply read his bio and decided that he is a vile megalomaniacal misogynistic, petty, anti-intellectual, prat who I would not hire for the position of paperboy, never-mind spiritual advisor/life coach.
If I am wrong, it is because the equipment he gave me to figure it all out, is faulty.
Right?
Also, the more inertia an object has, the greater effect it has on the curvature of spacetime. Since the inertia of an object depends on its mass.
Yes Ramases some of my post was in the particular subset of space that constitutes the Earth’s orbit (since those had been the examples used earlier). But yes, gravitational forces exist everywhere. I did mention I think the orbit of the earth around the sun.
Gravitational forces are actually extremely weak. Compared that is to electrostatic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. The effect that the mass has on the spacetime continuum however does extend much further (short version – gravitational forces have much larger range).
At any point in time whether you are visualising it as the net sum of gravitational forces, or our path in the spacetime distorted by the masses around us usually it’s the nearest large mass that has the largest effect.
GunGuy #679 … and besides, there are thousands of different versions of the bio out there, most of which completely contradict each other.
.
If there’s an ineffable something that has no measurable effect on the universe, it doesn’t need worshipping and is irrelevant to how we decide to live our lives (and can’t be said to have any opinions on anything, let alone eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibres); if there were an entity as described in the bauble, it would be a psychopathic tyrant. Other bios may vary, but if they describe entities that interact in any way whatsoever with the material world then they would be detectable – so their worshipppers would have evidence. And there’s never been any evidence forthcoming …
And what’s stopping it?
you’re fucking kidding me, right?
INERTIA
you have forgotten your basic classical physics lessons, apparently.
Note that so long as there is a single mass anywhere within a universe, the space-time of that universe cannot be flat strictly speaking.
asymptotes.
look at the picture again.
see how steep the edges of the curve are?
gravity is not only a very, VERY weak force, it follows the inverse square law, and its effects rapidly diminish as you move away from the source of mass.
as an example, if you tried to measure the gravitational force of the entire solar system, from a point completely outside of it (outside any of the orbits of any of the matter contained in it), it would barely be measurable.
universe is expanding, remember?
#682, Ichthyic
A object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion, neither accelerating or decelerating, unless acted upon by an outside force.
In our little thought experiment the only outside force acting upon each object is the gravity exerted by the other object. While the weak and strong force and electromagnetism act upon each object, it is only gravity that acts upon the other object.
Note too that in our thought experiment there are only two objects. There is nothing to keep each object in place. There is nothing to keep each object in place.
Picture an absolutely flat plan and an object resting upon it. A force is imparted which sets the object in motion. How far the object travels before coming to rest again depends on the energy imparted to it, and friction. The greater the friction the faster the object decelerates and comes to a rest. No friction the object keeps going forever.
That’s the deal with our two objects, no friction. No external force keeping them in place. They’re the only two objects in the whole universe, and so inertia cannot keep them in place. Nothing to rub against, no force counteracting the gravity of the other object
The gravity of each object is imparting motion to the other object, with no countervailing force acting to keep each object still. Now if each object were resting upon another, larger, more massive object then inertia would play a role, but as I established conditions, there is no other, more massive object with a greater gravity to keep the two objects in place. It is the gravity of each object which is acting upon the other object, imparting motion to it.
It’s not our universe I’m talking about, but a greatly simplified construct, and so conditions pertinent to our universe do not apply. The only force acting upon each object is gravity, and there is no other force that applies.
683,
I’m not talking about our universe, but a example with just two objects in all the vastness of space.
Let me address the matter of the degree of slope. Yes, it does become less the further away from the mass you get, but it never becomes absolutely flat. No matter how far away you get in a finite universe there will always be a slope. So long as there is a gravitational slope objects on that slope, unless acted upon by another force, such as momentum, will move towards the mass causing it.
you really don’t understand how inertia actually works.
Saw that Eric Hovind and his father’s mindless minions had invaded, and I was motivated to login, simply so I could post this direct statement to Eric, and his incarcerated felon dad…
You, and all talibangelical religious followers, are delusional fucktards, devoid of any redeeming societal value whatsoever.
Your god is a figment of your fevered imaginations, and is worthless to society. Answering ANY question with “goddidit” is sheer intellectual cowardice. I do not need your god, and I do not need any god poisoning our public education, public health policymaking, or secular government. Keep your Bronze Age myths and fairy tales to yourselves. It has no place in modern life. Lying for jesus might have been a lucrative racket for you, but it’s nothing more than a lousy Ponzi scheme. Go away already.
In other words, shut the fuck up.
…think of it like this:
look at the picture again, and imagine two metal balls sitting on a thin rubber sheet stretched between two boards. put them say, 4 feet apart. Imagine the indentations they make in the sheet, and the edges of those indentations. do the edges of the indentations interact? no. Is it likely then, that the two balls will move towards each other? no. In fact, they are much more likely to sit in the holes created by their own mass.
now, move those two balls so that they are 6 inches away from each other, say, so that the edges of the distortions created in the rubber sheet now overlap.
NOW they move towards each other.
it’s the same in space.
Ichthyic:
I think you are misunderstanding what inertia is. There is no minimum force needed to overcome inertia. Inertia is more akin to a resistance to a change in velocity, or put in another way an object with no net force applied will move at a constant velocity. These two objects in space will feel a force, no matter how small, and should come together over very very long length periods.
Now of course if there is friction then there is a minimum force needed to move the object … looking at static friction, the force needed to get an object moving is F= mu F_normal where mu is the co-efficient of static friction and F_normal the normal force defined as F=mg on the earth’s surface. This is proportional to the mass, m, which in a sense quantifies the inertia. Maybe this is what you are thinking of?
Ichthyic:
In fact, they are much more likely to sit in the holes created by their own mass.
There is nothing about “more likely” It’s not as if there is a chance that they might move but are more likely they will not.
These holes extend to an infinite extend, so will overlap. The force between them will be very small, but not 0. So the objects should slowly (initially and over a long time) come together. To move an object when there are no other forces (like friction) you do not need a minimum force to move the object (how would you define this force, assuming somehow proportional to the mass).
BTW: I’m actually a physicist.
But does this thought experiment take into account dark energy?
The real nature of dark energy and it’s properties is not exactly known well. I think this thought experiment is simply a small toy model … a universe with 2 small objects, and not considering the expansion/contraction of the universe, and only considering the dynamics of those two objects.
When I hear that stupid line “The fool says in his heart there is no god,” my response is always, “Well if even a fool can see it, what does that say about you?”
*sniff* I smell a martyr complex. Hardly surprising, though.
This has been one of the most entertaining threads in ages. Watching the Hovind zombies exhibit such circular reasoning is like watching a dog chase its tail until it falls over – except in the dog’s case, there’s a higher chance it’ll learn that it has no chance of catching the tail. I’m only sad that I didn’t have time to jump in, my claws are getting a bit dull from lack of use.
Well, I see the creationists, including at least one (in)famous one, are in here flooding the blog with their nonsense. Seriously, all they can do is ask the same old questions that have been asked and answered numerous times?
And then they resort to bible quotes, as though they actually believe that quoting that discredited source at us enough times will somehow make us start believing it.
I will answer one question, however. “If we could prove god’s existence in your terms, atheists, would you worship him?”
My answer to that is a resounding no. Because if you can prove that your god exists that would mean that the OT is accurate and nothing could get me worshipping the evil being of the OT that evolved – heh – into your deity. But I would believe in him.
Counter question: “If someone could prove, beyond any doubt, that another, completely different god, existed, would you worship it?
Because the wise are not so cowardly
Check out the Zombie thread.
They’re STILL at it? Well, there goes my afternoon productivity.
Guys, guys, that line about fools saying in their hearts that God doesn’t exist is completely correct if you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.
Because it’d imply I’m actually physically taking out my own heart to use it as a walkie-talkie! That’s a very foolish thing to do!
stewartt1982,
Thank you, you said it better than I ever could.
It is endlessly impossible to argue with hardcore bible-humpers for one single reason: They don’t care about reality. It is a clear and unquestioned part of their worldview that if their scripture and reality do not mesh, reality is wrong, and their book is right. No matter what.
You can show them proof, rock solid, easily understood, irrefutable. But it won’t matter, because if it doesn’t agree with scripture, your proof is wrong.
Nice little brainwashing setup these guys have going, huh?
Just in case anyone thinks that Euarchonto Glires is exaggerating, here’s the statement of faith of some of these groups:
Creation Ministries International
Answers in Genesis
The ICR has theirs spread out among the entire page; these two parts are the main:
Ah hell. You get the idea.
BTW: I’m actually a physicist.
OK, then show me the formula for calculating an object’s inertia.
This is a rhetorical question, really, since it includes a variable for mass, which you should well know, being a physicist and all.
Tell me, Einstein, why mass is a variable if it has no effect, which is what I must conclude from what you are saying.