I go through spells where I just don't feel like writing. For years I had heard how terrible my writing is and I think that it has put a sort of block in my head where I just don't want to write some days...
However, lately I have also noticed that i have not real desire to try to write when I think it will do little good as well. What I mean is, that I see bloggers, lots of them, saying pretty much what I want to say. But very little seems to be coming out of it. The same stupid people reply with their attacks or the same supportive people with thier huzzahs. But I rarely see those, "wow I didn't know this", or "this really moved me", or "changed my opinion".
Recently I have been following the blogs and news about Jessica Ahlquist and man did she light a fire under the Theists asses recently. See she won her case against the Cranston Rhode Island school board for them having a prayer banner in their gymnasium. Well you would have thought she had been the person who actually nail good ol christ to the cross from the reaction she got. People attacking her left and right. It was disgusting, seriously sickening, watching the scathing attacks coming at her.
The hypocrisy of the religious follower never ceases to amaze me. I mean I know there are those "believers" who are nice and moral people. But do those morals really come from their religious belief, or is it they are moral people due to being raised to be so, taught it from their parents? If it came from their religion then you would not see certain "believers" attacking other then would you? No they would be like every other good moral person I know. So that pretty much shoots the whole "you can't be moral unless you believe" argument out of the water in my opinion.
Sure there will be those that follow this line of thought and argue, "well they don't really believe" or "they aren't really true christians".... Bullshit, if they didn't believe, if they weren't truly christian, they wouldn't be so fanatical, attacking the poor girl simply because she doesn't believe as they do. They are so routed in the idea that god exists and is there for them that ANY question or action opposed to their belief is an affront to their religion and thus to them. Do I have that backwards? Maybe its an affront to them and their beliefs so THEN it must be one to their religion too.
I see that in many cases. Look at the Catholic church for example. Not that the Catholics are some paragon of morallity or anything, but the church DID declare evolution to be perfectly fine and work just as well with their belief in a deity. But there are several followers that refuse to accept it and thus take any mention of it as an affront against them and their god.
Oh well. I need to get back to work the 'memtest' on the laptop I am working on is almost complete. Later, if I think about it, I will write what has been bugging me about the whole feminist/misogynist thing going on in the Skeptic community.
Showing posts with label Religious Stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Stupidity. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Stop with the "it's just a theory bullshit"
Darwin never proposed Evolution, he proposed survival of the fittest or
natural selection... Huge difference, so try to keep it straight... but
If your not going to read the facts about it you'll never keep it
straight.... Also before you claim you have, I know most of you haven't
otherwise you would have know he never proposed evolution and thus would
not keep referring to him as the one who did... Oh and his (Darwin's)
"THEORIES" have already been proven, Natural Selection happens, we have
seen it all around us and witnessed it occurring....
Also if most of you had read and were even rudimentary versed in science, you would know the difference between hypothesis and theory but you don't. Because you people sling around "theory" like its some 4 letter word when in fact a theory has already been proven, which it why it is called a theory...
Part of the problem today come from the generalization use of the word theory in the English language in common conversation. For example when one individual looks at another individual and says something like:
"I have a theory why this object might not be working... "
it in fact, is a hypothesis, as it is unproven until said individual tests it.. But in modern Language theory has come to mean something completely different from what it actually means.
A nice explanation of Theory Vs Law, which is of course your next argument is as follows.
The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.
Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.
So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.
The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.
Read more:
"Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology"
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis...
Problem is though Most of you will never get it straight because you take and recycle the arguments of those before you believing the horse crap they spout and re-spout it yourself...
The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of the Principal of Super-Position
The Theory of Special Relativity
The Theory of Atomic Structure
The Theory of Nuclear Fusion
All of those are known just like:
The Theory of Evolution
That's why it isn't called
The Hypothesis of Evolution
Also if most of you had read and were even rudimentary versed in science, you would know the difference between hypothesis and theory but you don't. Because you people sling around "theory" like its some 4 letter word when in fact a theory has already been proven, which it why it is called a theory...
Part of the problem today come from the generalization use of the word theory in the English language in common conversation. For example when one individual looks at another individual and says something like:
"I have a theory why this object might not be working... "
it in fact, is a hypothesis, as it is unproven until said individual tests it.. But in modern Language theory has come to mean something completely different from what it actually means.
A nice explanation of Theory Vs Law, which is of course your next argument is as follows.
The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.
Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.
So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.
The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.
Read more:
"Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology"
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis...
Problem is though Most of you will never get it straight because you take and recycle the arguments of those before you believing the horse crap they spout and re-spout it yourself...
The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of the Principal of Super-Position
The Theory of Special Relativity
The Theory of Atomic Structure
The Theory of Nuclear Fusion
All of those are known just like:
The Theory of Evolution
That's why it isn't called
The Hypothesis of Evolution
Monday, September 19, 2011
Why are atheists suddenly attacking religion (christians)
I have seen this reference in many poll, poll responses, and blogs
spots... Thing is yeah it is fairly new but there is a reason why
Atheists are suddenly so vocal, and just because we are becoming more
vocal it is NOT necessarily an attack...
For many centuries it was a punishable offense to be an atheist in the world, In fact it still causes prejudice, in many cases people are ostracized for being openly atheist... People have been fired from jobs, kicked out of organization refused admittance to job and organizations for having the atheist stance... And example 15% of the US is now estimated to be atheist, how come there is only ONE atheist in government open about it? because simply put the is no way in hell an open atheist would get elected in this country... that one atheist came out after he had been elected to office...
Recently well known people (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) have stood up and said we are tired of it and fighting back against this continued oppression (YES Oppression). the atheists of the world have been and are still oppressed in many areas. In some communities around the world you are still open to be KILLED because of an atheist stance...
The reason it appears "the 'in' thing to do" is because millions of atheists who, until recently, have been afraid to speak openly, are now coming out, like the previously mentioned people, because of this oppression are saying "NO, we arent taking it any longer"... They are arguing back for once strongly and openly... they are feeling empowered and able to do so without fear of overt retribution...
As for the whole "attacking christianity all of a sudden", that is not the case. We are vocal against all religion, even peace loving Buddhist, As religion leads to illogical conclusions, conformity to authoritarian rule, and well closed mindedness in general. I could list a whole slew of other things as well but it would be redundant. The reason it appears to be christianity is the simple fact, really...
We live in a country (countries) dominated by christians, it is who we deal with on a daily basis and what cult/sects we are most familiar with. Many of us are Ex-christians, though many believers try to play that off. SO it would stand to reason that we would talk about christianity the most.
For many centuries it was a punishable offense to be an atheist in the world, In fact it still causes prejudice, in many cases people are ostracized for being openly atheist... People have been fired from jobs, kicked out of organization refused admittance to job and organizations for having the atheist stance... And example 15% of the US is now estimated to be atheist, how come there is only ONE atheist in government open about it? because simply put the is no way in hell an open atheist would get elected in this country... that one atheist came out after he had been elected to office...
Recently well known people (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) have stood up and said we are tired of it and fighting back against this continued oppression (YES Oppression). the atheists of the world have been and are still oppressed in many areas. In some communities around the world you are still open to be KILLED because of an atheist stance...
The reason it appears "the 'in' thing to do" is because millions of atheists who, until recently, have been afraid to speak openly, are now coming out, like the previously mentioned people, because of this oppression are saying "NO, we arent taking it any longer"... They are arguing back for once strongly and openly... they are feeling empowered and able to do so without fear of overt retribution...
As for the whole "attacking christianity all of a sudden", that is not the case. We are vocal against all religion, even peace loving Buddhist, As religion leads to illogical conclusions, conformity to authoritarian rule, and well closed mindedness in general. I could list a whole slew of other things as well but it would be redundant. The reason it appears to be christianity is the simple fact, really...
We live in a country (countries) dominated by christians, it is who we deal with on a daily basis and what cult/sects we are most familiar with. Many of us are Ex-christians, though many believers try to play that off. SO it would stand to reason that we would talk about christianity the most.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
God did his Best
The really odd thing to me is how this is a piece of building that was the center of so much death, washed in the blood of innocence and yet they want to make something out of it like it was some miracle that cross shaped beams survived the destruction... Wait... Um...
How many cross shaped beams survived?
Better question, How many cross sections were in the WHOLE TOWER(S) to begin with?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)