A universe from nothing

[totalnoob]

Are you religious folks really getting upset over a few short lines? Was it when he said "Forget Jesus, the STARS died so that we can be here."

I thought that was a great line..all the better because it is completely true and provable. He was discussing supernovas, and the fact is that humanity couldn't exist in the absence of a previous supernova to send carbon and other life-giving elements into space. We know beyond doubt that the "stuff" of humanity did not exist at the beginning of time..so can you really blame scientists for cracking occasional jokes about the nonsensical beliefs of religion? If you really want to respect science, you've got to discard bronze age fairy tales. You can't study the nature of the universe while clinging to biblical creationism. They are incompatible.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Are you religious folks really getting upset over a few short lines? Was it when he said "Forget Jesus, the STARS died so that we can be here."

I thought that was a great line..all the better because it is completely true and provable. He was discussing supernovas, and the fact is that humanity couldn't exist in the absence of a previous supernova to send carbon and other life-giving elements into space. We know beyond doubt that the "stuff" of humanity did not exist at the beginning of time..so can you really blame scientists for cracking occasional jokes about the nonsensical beliefs of religion? If you really want to respect science, you've got to discard bronze age fairy tales. You can't study the nature of the universe while clinging to biblical creationism. They are incompatible.

Yes I can blame them, because now they are changing a venue that can be used to educate and broaden minds into one of aggression, an attack on organised religion. There is no need to work at alienating people, especially ones that might benefit the most about being more knowledgeable of current scientific theory. Science isn't about anti-religion, it isn't anti-government, it isn't an ant-ism or an -ism. It isn't meant to have any agenda except one of learning, modeling and describing. Religion isn't a direct threat on this, just about any prominent scientist before the 20th century would have been raised in very religious environment and probably hit the pews every week. But that did not prevent them from performing good science.

The idea that science is out to destroy religion is an idea that causes a great deal of friction from the religious community. To take a combative stance against religion in general only fuels the idea that any science is a threat and should be dealt with in kind. Scientists can rail against willful ignorance, scientists can argue against the creeping of politics into science, but they shouldn't be arguing against religion for the sake of it. There are valid reasons that religion can be damaging to scientific progress, but it would behoove the community to focus on those specific reasons instead of going at the broader target. Heck, most of the time people have a hard enough time separating evolution from biogenesis. Telling churchgoers that they are stupid and believe in fairy tales is not going to do anything to open their minds and be more receptive to science. But above all, it has nothing to do with the lecture, so why include it? Why be so combative?

 

[Fritzo]

The Universe from Nothing theory appeared after Jerry Seinfeld became a physicist

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
The Universe from Nothing theory appeared after Jerry Seinfeld became a physicist

Hmmm....

Well played, Fritzo, well played.

/me golf claps.

 

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Yes I can blame them, because now they are changing a venue that can be used to educate and broaden minds into one of aggression

It's not aggression buddy. The history of religious thought is about suppression.. It isn't the fault of scientists that attempts to raise consciousness and broaden minds seems "aggressive" to religion. The problem lies with religion itself. Fundamentalism and biblical literalism can not coexist with science. The fact is that religious people might be "alienated" when a scientist is brazen enough to speak this truth is irrelevant. We are talking about reality vs people who worship an ancient book that contradicts reality. Why sugarcoat it?

Science isn't about anti-religion, it isn't anti-government, it isn't an ant-ism or an -ism. It isn't meant to have any agenda except one of learning, modeling and describing. Religion isn't a direct threat on this, just about any prominent scientist before the 20th century would have been raised in very religious environment and probably hit the pews every week. But that did not prevent them from performing good science.

The problem comes when religion pollutes the water..when it sows disinformation in society by denying what we know about astronomy and biology...proposing we teach the "controversy" over evolution in schools, when in fact there is NO controversy over these things in the scientific community.

The idea that science is out to destroy religion is an idea that causes a great deal of friction from the religious community.

The fact that religious groups are actively undermining science causes a great deal of friction in the enlightened community.

There are valid reasons that religion can be damaging to scientific progress, but it would behoove the community to focus on those specific reasons instead of going at the broader target. Heck, most of the time people have a hard enough time separating evolution from biogenesis. Telling churchgoers that they are stupid and believe in fairy tales is not going to do anything to open their minds and be more receptive to science.

Treating people who are flat-out wrong as respectable adversaries with a simple "difference of opinion" isn't going to do it either. Many religious groups are intellectual vandals acting against human progress today.. There is no reason not to say so, or to omit an occasional joke at their expense.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wow, that was awesome! A little pompous on the anti-religion angle, (maybe even a little pompous in general) but an awesome lecture nonetheless.

I'll watch it, but I hate when ANYONE takes a pompous attitude to lecturing. All the best teachers and speakers are keen on emphasizing how little is known and what things they do know from evidence, not how they think they are better for believing in something someone else doesn't (regardless of whether it's true or not).

He was pompous about RELIGION, not spirituality. One is useless, and the other is personal and has no effect on the growth of civilization. The attitude he has is just.

A belief not worth sharing is not worth believing.

That's a wonderful quote, I like it. But it's irrelevant. Religion is not the sharing of beliefs, it's the push of dogma. It does not change and develop for us a better understanding of the cosmos through trial and error, theory and evidence, or peer reviewing. Religion, I'm afraid, is as if somebody 1000 years from now took the book Twilight seriously. Don't insult me, I don't fold in the face of no evidence.

The author of twilight wrote fiction. The authors of the gospel wrote things they claimed to have witnessed. You are making a false comparison.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: totalnoob
Are you religious folks really getting upset over a few short lines? Was it when he said "Forget Jesus, the STARS died so that we can be here."

I thought that was a great line..all the better because it is completely true and provable. He was discussing supernovas, and the fact is that humanity couldn't exist in the absence of a previous supernova to send carbon and other life-giving elements into space. We know beyond doubt that the "stuff" of humanity did not exist at the beginning of time..so can you really blame scientists for cracking occasional jokes about the nonsensical beliefs of religion? If you really want to respect science, you've got to discard bronze age fairy tales. You can't study the nature of the universe while clinging to biblical creationism. They are incompatible.

Who's getting upset? We are just noting the hypocrisy.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wow, that was awesome! A little pompous on the anti-religion angle, (maybe even a little pompous in general) but an awesome lecture nonetheless.

I'll watch it, but I hate when ANYONE takes a pompous attitude to lecturing. All the best teachers and speakers are keen on emphasizing how little is known and what things they do know from evidence, not how they think they are better for believing in something someone else doesn't (regardless of whether it's true or not).

He was pompous about RELIGION, not spirituality. One is useless, and the other is personal and has no effect on the growth of civilization. The attitude he has is just.

If that is how the professor spoke you just made Crono's point.

when in fact there is NO controversy over these things in the scientific community

Really? This is just one book, apparently from a non-spiritual perspective. I've not read it but a friend who is reading it has told me of it. BTW it references many scholarly sources that also question the evolutionary theory. Does this mean they are right? Who knows. I'm simply saying don't try and pretend there is consensus when there is not.

The fact that religious groups are actively undermining science causes a great deal of friction in the enlightened community.

Enlightened, that sounds religiously dogmatic if I've ever heard it.

It does not change and develop for us a better understanding of the cosmos through trial and error, theory and evidence, or peer reviewing.

This is true, but in this statement you hint at a belief you have that the only right way to look at existence is through a lens that does expand the understanding of the cosmos through a scientific window, but of course you cannot prove, scientifically or other, that this is the one and only correct way to understand existence. If for some reason I get it in my head that only people who's names are Bob should be trusted and Jim tells me that what Bob is saying is wrong, I will ask Bob about this and he'll say that Jim is a liar. I then know Jim is a liar because Bob told me so. Everything starts and ends with Bob.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: JS80
this shit makes no sense. so nothing is something, but nothing is nothing only because we can't see it? *headasplodes*

If you really want to blow your mind, do some reading on quantum mechanics beginning with the double split experiment..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&fmt=18

Your brain will explode when you understand what happens at 4:25.

Well then.

Consider my brain exploded.

THanks for the link OP, very interesting. I am agnostic, with a slight tendancy towards atheism (but am still in the agnostic camp), and while I might have found the religion/God jabs funny they had no place in a scientific lecture. Yeah, the forget Jesus the stars died for you stuff is funny, but he was one of the more "agressive" atheists that try to push "God doesn't exist" dogma.

Science is science, and religion is religion. One does not disprove the other, and one should not attack the other in advancing understanding and knowledge of it's field.

 

[illusion88]

marking this for later

 

[DangerAardvark]

Man I'm tired of religious people taking everything beautiful and making it about themselves. But that's the arrogance of religion isn't it? Rant about the arrogance of science while claiming to know the unknowable.

 

[baoytl]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: JS80
this shit makes no sense. so nothing is something, but nothing is nothing only because we can't see it? *headasplodes*

If you really want to blow your mind, do some reading on quantum mechanics beginning with the double split experiment..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&fmt=18

Your brain will explode when you understand what happens at 4:25.

Well then.

Consider my brain exploded.

THanks for the link OP, very interesting. I am agnostic, with a slight tendancy towards atheism (but am still in the agnostic camp), and while I might have found the religion/God jabs funny they had no place in a scientific lecture. Yeah, the forget Jesus the stars died for you stuff is funny, but he was one of the more "agressive" atheists that try to push "God doesn't exist" dogma.

Science is science, and religion is religion. One does not disprove the other, and one should not attack the other in advancing understanding and knowledge of it's field.

You also have to consider who the targeted audience was. This was at the Atheist Alliance International 2009. So it would be similar to politicians making political digs and jabs against their adversaries at their respected political functions.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: JS80

The author of twilight wrote fiction. The authors of the gospel wrote things they claimed to have witnessed. You are making a false comparison.

Why aren't all christians mormans? That was written by someone who claimed to have witnessed it; all christians should be eating it up. Just a random question not really relavant to what you were addressing.

 

[StageLeft]

Rant about the arrogance of science while claiming to know the unknowable.

To them it's not unknowable. Just sayin'

 

[polarmystery]

tag

 

[StageLeft]

respected political functions.

Surely you meant respective. Nothing respectable about political functions

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: JS80

The author of twilight wrote fiction. The authors of the gospel wrote things they claimed to have witnessed. You are making a false comparison.

Why aren't all christians mormans? That was written by someone who claimed to have witnessed it; all christians should be eating it up. Just a random question not really relavant to what you were addressing.

Because mormans are morans.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: baoytl

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: JS80
this shit makes no sense. so nothing is something, but nothing is nothing only because we can't see it? *headasplodes*

If you really want to blow your mind, do some reading on quantum mechanics beginning with the double split experiment..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&fmt=18

Your brain will explode when you understand what happens at 4:25.

Well then.

Consider my brain exploded.

THanks for the link OP, very interesting. I am agnostic, with a slight tendancy towards atheism (but am still in the agnostic camp), and while I might have found the religion/God jabs funny they had no place in a scientific lecture. Yeah, the forget Jesus the stars died for you stuff is funny, but he was one of the more "agressive" atheists that try to push "God doesn't exist" dogma.

Science is science, and religion is religion. One does not disprove the other, and one should not attack the other in advancing understanding and knowledge of it's field.

You also have to consider who the targeted audience was. This was at the Atheist Alliance International 2009. So it would be similar to politicians making political digs and jabs against their adversaries at their respected political functions.

I saw that.

Still, by putting religion into it he opens himself up to be discredited. That's why I didn't get annoyed by them, because it came with the territory that lecture was in. By throwing religion into it though, he just alienates himself to a lot of intelligent people. He could have just toned it down a tad IMHO and wouldn't have had anybody there complaining about there not being enough religion bashing. Keep stuff like the Jesus/star comment (that was good btw), but stick to maybe one religion bashing thing every 15-20 minutes. Just IMHO.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Man I'm tired of religious people taking everything beautiful and making it about themselves. But that's the arrogance of religion isn't it? Rant about the arrogance of science while claiming to know the unknowable.

Arrogance of science? Science is a tool, no more or less. The application of science is dependent on the the individuals or organizations wielding it. The same applies to religion.

If you take a look at technology, you can see that it can be used for good (medical technology, transportation, communication, etc) or for evil (weapons used to commit murder and genocide, disenfranchise and censor people, etc). Somehow people think that religion is necessarily useless or destructive, but that simply isn't the case. Religion will always exist because it consists of the fundamental beliefs of people. Even if people don't believe in a god or gods, there will always be something to take its place.

What strikes me as remarkable is that so many intelligent people fail to comprehend that science and religion are inherently neutral, and it's the relative newness of science on a massive scale that has prevented it from being incorporated and manipulated as much into organized belief systems by the power hungry and arrogant.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Man I'm tired of religious people taking everything beautiful and making it about themselves. But that's the arrogance of religion isn't it? Rant about the arrogance of science while claiming to know the unknowable.

Arrogance of science? Science is a tool, no more or less. The application of science is dependent on the the individuals or organizations wielding it. The same applies to religion.

If you take a look at technology, you can see that it can be used for good (medical technology, transportation, communication, etc) or for evil (weapons used to commit murder and genocide, disenfranchise and censor people, etc). Somehow people think that religion is necessarily useless or destructive, but that simply isn't the case. Religion will always exist because it consists of the fundamental beliefs of people. Even if people don't believe in a god or gods, there will always be something to take its place.

What strikes me as remarkable is that so many intelligent people fail to comprehend that science and religion are inherently neutral, and it's the relative newness of science on a massive scale that has prevented it from being incorporated and manipulated as much into organized belief systems by the power hungry and arrogant.

You just stated that murder was evil by citing an example of mass murder. Now, if religion promotes mass murder it is not neutral.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Man I'm tired of religious people taking everything beautiful and making it about themselves. But that's the arrogance of religion isn't it? Rant about the arrogance of science while claiming to know the unknowable.

Arrogance of science? Science is a tool, no more or less. The application of science is dependent on the the individuals or organizations wielding it. The same applies to religion.

If you take a look at technology, you can see that it can be used for good (medical technology, transportation, communication, etc) or for evil (weapons used to commit murder and genocide, disenfranchise and censor people, etc). Somehow people think that religion is necessarily useless or destructive, but that simply isn't the case. Religion will always exist because it consists of the fundamental beliefs of people. Even if people don't believe in a god or gods, there will always be something to take its place.

What strikes me as remarkable is that so many intelligent people fail to comprehend that science and religion are inherently neutral, and it's the relative newness of science on a massive scale that has prevented it from being incorporated and manipulated as much into organized belief systems by the power hungry and arrogant.

You just stated that murder was evil by citing an example of mass murder. Now, if religion promotes mass murder it is not neutral.

Religion isn't an entity, though, and can't promote mass murder.
Science isn't an entity, either, so neither can it.
Organizations or people using religion and/or science certainly can promote and commit mass murder, and those that do need to be condemned and stopped.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: JS80

The author of twilight wrote fiction. The authors of the gospel wrote things they claimed to have witnessed. You are making a false comparison.

Why aren't all christians mormans? That was written by someone who claimed to have witnessed it; all christians should be eating it up. Just a random question not really relavant to what you were addressing.

Because mormans are morans.

Why are they morans and not the people writing 2000 years ago? When did god stop legitmatly talking to people, and the only people who wrote after that are morans?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: JS80

The author of twilight wrote fiction. The authors of the gospel wrote things they claimed to have witnessed. You are making a false comparison.

Why aren't all christians mormans? That was written by someone who claimed to have witnessed it; all christians should be eating it up. Just a random question not really relavant to what you were addressing.

Because mormans are morans.

Why are they morans and not the people writing 2000 years ago? When did god stop legitmatly talking to people, and the only people who wrote after that are morans?

*WOOSH*

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: JS80

*WOOSH*

I know that sound. It's the sound a Christian makes when he high-tails it out of a thread without answering legitimate questions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bringing in religion is specious. It had nothing to do with the topic. Hey, how about "This is General Relativity" Oh, and how about them darkies?

Not everyone who is religious is anti science and the reverse is also true. It's the moonbats at either end who make most reasonable and educated people shake their heads. This little "science" talk had an agenda.