theism,agnosticism, atheism, morality

[JustHanging]

warnings work a lot better if you can confirm the person who originally gave it and the danger actually exist


so lets try

hey god did you give us any warnings?

helo god?


nope nothing

LOL, that's brilliant. Made me think of this.

 

[Logicman]

As always "acceptance" is relative


Yes all Christian churches accept that the book of Revelation exists.

However, they all put their own spin on what it means.


Or maybe you're like gfm7175, who says that courts don't interpret the law because the law is written in English

That because the Bible has been translated into English, it needs no interpretation ?

Perhaps you should read Revelation 21:8 so you won't be guessing.

 

[zyzygy]

Quantum theories are more theoretical science than scientifically proven facts.

Wrong.

 

[Angel]

The Mahabharata clearly states as a result of bad karma Naraka is the punishment. Naraka is often mistranslated into English as the Hindu equivalent of the Christian "hell" or Catholic "purgatory." However, this misunderstanding is likely a result of there being no exact word in English equal to Naraka. Naraka is not a place of eternal damnation, as is hell of Western Christian theology. It is also not a place of forced purification where soul must remain until some final Judgment Day, as the Catholic purgatory. Instead Naraka is a place of purification where the spirits of the deceased come to be cleaned through suffering over a span of time (the length of which depends on how much negative karma the spirit accumulated during life). Damnation by a god is not what sends a person to Naraka, but rather their own negative and immoral actions during life.

Two questions. Did you forget to post a link? Do you mean to imply that you've read The Mahabharata?

 

[marke]

Are you trying to be obtuse? I've explained to you twice that science does not "prove" anything, yet you keep mentioning this as if it is a negative. It's not.

And Evolution is a fact. Period. It's obvious that you literally have no idea what biologists mean when they use the term Evolution. Please do me the courtesy of learning the meaning of the words you are using. Look up the scientific meaning of biological evolution, and you will understand why it is a "fact". Even the most whack-a-doodle creationists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind agree. Your bible needs evolution to be a fact.

A peek into most deluded Darwinist's heads reveals that they think science cannot prove anything and yet evolution has been proven. Go stupid figger.

 

[marke]

Wrong.

Do you think quantum theories are proven scientific facts? No, they are not.

 

[zyzygy]

A peek into most deluded Darwinist's heads reveals that they think science cannot prove anything and yet evolution has been proven. Go stupid figger.

Insults instead of proof. You are a bad advert for Christianity.

 

[zyzygy]

Do you think quantum theories are proven scientific facts? No, they are not.

They are. If you had any scientific knowledge then you would know that. You prefer tales told by Bronze Age goat herders.

 

[JustHanging]

A peek into most deluded Darwinist's heads reveals that they think science cannot prove anything and yet evolution has been proven.

Is there some reason you're posting such an incoherent mess? Science does not say evolution has been "proven." I've explained this to you before.

Go stupid figger.

:lamo

 

[zyzygy]

Do you think quantum theories are proven scientific facts? No, they are not.

http://web.mit.edu/course/5/5.73/oldwww/Fall04/notes/Experimental_Evidence_for_Quantum_Mechanics.pdf
https://gizmodo.com/scientists-finally-prove-strange-quantum-physics-idea-e-1798433666
https://sciencestruck.com/basics-of-quantum-mechanics-for-dummies

 

[zyzygy]

Is there some reason you're posting such an incoherent mess? Science does not say evolution has been "proven." I've explained this to you before.



:lamo

Yes. Fundamentalist religion.

 

[zyzygy]

A peek into most deluded Darwinist's heads reveals that they think science cannot prove anything and yet evolution has been proven. Go stupid figger.

The word is spelt "figure." I suggest that you read the rules of the forum. No personal insults allowed. Attack the message not the messenger.

 

[marke]

Is there some reason you're posting such an incoherent mess? Science does not say evolution has been "proven." I've explained this to you before.

:lamo

Yes you have expressed your unscientific opinion before, but I'm not buying that speculative junk science.

 

[zyzygy]

Yes you have expressed your unscientific opinion before, but I'm not buying that speculative junk science.

Irony meters explode!!!!

 

[blarg]

Irony meters explode!!!!

 

[marke]

http://web.mit.edu/course/5/5.73/oldwww/Fall04/notes/Experimental_Evidence_for_Quantum_Mechanics.pdf

These reporters are very sloppy in their reporting. Quantum mechanics is not proven in this report, it is simply reported that researchers (mathematicians) have demonstrated the probability that quantum mechanics theories may be true. But what does that even mean, given their admission that quantum mechanics cannot predict the precise outcome of experiments due to the "uncertainty principle?"

https://gizmodo.com/scientists-finally-prove-strange-quantum-physics-idea-e-1798433666

"Proof?" This is not proof, no matter how badly the reporters butcher the meaning of the word "proof." This is their so-called "proof:"

It is important to note that, while this is a mathematical proof, it is only as strong as the assumptions and definitions the authors include in the work.

A further admission: And there's a long road ahead. The physicists only proved one (albeit wacky) piece of quantum mechanics, not the whole theory.

https://sciencestruck.com/basics-of-quantum-mechanics-for-dummies

Appropriately entitled "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies." This is how Richard Feynman, the father of quantum theories explains it:

"I think I can say that nobody understands quantum theory."

That's it, folks. Anyone claiming to understand the quasi science of quantum mechanics is a dummy.

 

[zyzygy]

These reporters are very sloppy in their reporting. Quantum mechanics is not proven in this report, it is simply reported that researchers (mathematicians) have demonstrated the probability that quantum mechanics theories may be true. But what does that even mean, given their admission that quantum mechanics cannot predict the precise outcome of experiments due to the "uncertainty principle?"



"Proof?" This is not proof, no matter how badly the reporters butcher the meaning of the word "proof." This is their so-called "proof:"

It is important to note that, while this is a mathematical proof, it is only as strong as the assumptions and definitions the authors include in the work.

A further admission: And there's a long road ahead. The physicists only proved one (albeit wacky) piece of quantum mechanics, not the whole theory.




Appropriately entitled "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies." This is how Richard Feynman, the father of quantum theories explains it:

"I think I can say that nobody understands quantum theory."

That's it, folks. Anyone claiming to understand the quasi science of quantum mechanics is a dummy.

Nevertheless many experiments have confirmed quantum theory. I realize that believing in a sky daddy is an easy thing to do. Science is more of a challenge.