Jesus Christ is Lord!

Post Reply New Topic

Is there a reason why a theist does not deserve respect? Other than the illegal deeds they may perform of course?

Now here is something I would love to learn from you, please, at any time I would welcome your "grammatical nitpicking", even more welcome would be help with my punctuation. Good to see you posting, looking forward to crossing swords on matters other than grammar and punctuation

BTW how is the vegan diet going?

I look at it this way: I respects the right of people to have beliefs, but not always the beliefs themselves. Would you respect the belief that the earth is flat? I don't, but people are free to believe it anyway.

@yournamehere

I feel I owe you a partial apology. From what I can deduce from your posts, I wrongly assumed you to be in the "religion trumps science" camp, this is why I got so aggressive to your "whats the big deal about science" post. I thought, wrongly as it would appear, that you are of the same character as some of the YECS in this forum. So for implying that you are a scientific denier who should forgo the wonders of scientific discovery, I apologise.

There is however a "but" attached to this apology;

I am fully cognisant of the fact that we do not completely understand ALL the mechanisms which CAN keep a bicycle upright, However your assertion that "Scientists can't even figure out how a bicycle works. According to science, it is not supposed to do what it does." is pushing the envelope way too far, the article you cite is grossly misreporting the actual Paper.

The New Statesmen article that you get your information from states "The publication plunged bicycle dynamics back into chaos. It turns out that taking into account the angles of the headset and the forks, the distribution of weight and the handlebar turn, the gyroscopic effects are not enough to keep a bike upright after all"

The above statement is bordering upon being completely fallacious, and is certainly grossly misleading at best.

The actual paper is titled "A Bicycle Can Be Self-Stable Without Gyroscopic or Caster Effects" and goes on to show that although a Conventional bike DOES require these mechanisms, this is not the only configuration that will work. To quote from the abstract "A riderless bicycle can automatically steer itself so as to recover from falls. The common view is that this self-steering is caused by gyroscopic precession of the front wheel, or by the wheel contact trailing like a caster behind the steer axis. We show that neither effect is necessary for self-stability. Using linearized stability calculations as a guide, we built a bicycle with extra counter-rotating wheels (canceling the wheel spin angular momentum) and with its front-wheel ground-contact forward of the steer axis (making the trailing distance negative). When laterally disturbed from rolling straight, this bicycle automatically recovers to upright travel. Our results show that various design variables, like the front mass location and the steer axis tilt, contribute to stability in complex interacting ways."

So I would suggest that your statement is incorrect.

~John Lennon


The area I live in is a haven for fundamentalist Christians, who live their life by making Jesus a GOD instead of philosopher; teacher; a person with a way to a better life.

Yes, John 3:16 is their mantra of life. But unfortunately it misses the entire message of even what's in the rest of the new testament that does makes sense in accordance with the laws of human nature.

The man Jesus aka Yeshua's real reported message is there is a higher power in this life, now, that a person can tap into to cure themselves of life's ills.

Well, science does most definitely show that to be true in many ways now, as science indicates that attitude and stress itself is a killer of human beings, down to the destruction of the central nervous system, respiratory system, and cardio-vascular system too, as well as other bodily systems too.

Stress hormones are only truly meant for sporadic bursts of flight of fight.

Culture for thousands of years now, has been bringing illusory fears, to basically shorten the lives of folks concurrently with the technology of sanitation and medicine that lengthens life as well.

Jesus, the real man Jesus, as indicated in earlier text than the Roman Catholic and Roman Empire twist for power ways, basically says forget the lies of culture, you have the power in your self, to heal your self, and yes, science does indicate this as true; all you have to do is get in control of stress and don't let it control you. Yes, hard to do, when a person is under control of other folks for their very subsistence of hand to mouth existence.

Well, anyway, the first Sunday of every month my wife's relatives have us come to an elderly Baptist preacher's family get together on his farm.

In his little church he went to the trouble of buying all the kids shirts that say: it's not about me it?s about Jesus.

Well the problem about that is: Jesus is dead.

The kids are alive.

They have the opportunity to control and improve their life through the real human attributes of will, belief, faith, and hope. Yes, these are real human powerful emotions that emote aka as moving folks forward to a better life. But the power is all theirs, not a dead man that showed folks a way to get there through their own will, belief, faith and hope, and no one else but them.

It is about me.

Our Universes start and end with me.

But we connect too, to others too, and that is where love and empathy comes in, with science having a better understanding now of what makes human's tick, in this way of love and empathy too.

Anytime a person personally attacks someone, I cringe a little bit, as it such an obvious indication that, that person only feels inferior.

In science, it is no part of science; emotionalism is all it is.

And there is absolutely no place for it, in formal debate.

And yes, the reason this forum can never be considered actual debate, as it is freely allowed here.

All it does is cloud the real issues at hand.

But never the less, this forum is one described as discussion; not debate; and yes discussion often includes personal attacks.

And yes, personally attacking one's beliefs (i.e. you are a troll, moron, idiot, etc. for believing that way) is most definitely a form of that. A person is their beliefs; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

That's why they say never discuss politics and religion with someone who you want to be friends with; you attack their soul, yes their figurative soul, and you get bit back; most often, if you attack their beliefs as belief's are core to 'soul'.

My religious beliefs about GOD as the GOD of nature are impervious to scientific argument.

But still, the Christian folks in my area, think I'm some kind of devil when I tell them in my shorts in 18 degree weather that I have developed the power to be impervious to these cold temperatures by the 'all seeing power' of the GOD of nature. I only giggle inside, not outside to make them feel bad; there's not much flack they are going to give a 230LB martial artist.

No, I wasn't always the alpha male by far; but per my GOD off nature it is definitely the best way to go in life; if you have the power within your will to make yourself the Alpha male. And no, don't think you can't; or you won't. Even moving from totally disabled to that point at age 53 to 54 for me.

I believed; that made the difference. And no I wasn't trying to be above anyone; it's just how people view you when you are strong and fearless on the inside and outside too. That makes it even more fun, as I do not care if people show me respect non-verbally or verbally in real life, anyway. And yes, that too is part of what naturally makes me an Alpha male too. It's just a part of nature. And oh my F**ning GOD NATURE is just as awesome as science.

And hell yes, if you don't believe it, I have more than enough evidence on many places on the Internet to make you a believer on that one. The power of the Alpha male is proven as valuable as a real GOD of nature given talent. And respected everywhere a person goes in real life, too, most often.

And yes it is definitely on topic as Jesus said; basically you can do anything you want; with faith, belief and hope and most importantly the will of you and Mother Nature true aka GOD for me and many others too.

But on a scientific point; it's not some supernatural magic; it's epigenetics and neuroplasticity; if there is enough environmental challenge through adversity; either stimulated by the environment or you, change in adaptation both mental and physical does and will occur, as in our DNA we have the ability to un-domesticate ourselves, basically, and bring the inner 'APE' out, and yes retain civility too, as balance as well.

It's what Yogi's in the Tibetan Mountains do. And science does prove it out, as yes true in all of what human potential can be with Tibetan Yogi's too.

And yes, Bruce Lee is another excellent example. He's probably more like the real man Jesus, than anyone else in recent history.

They both have something in common; neither one believes in fundamentalist ways of religion. And both of them very much believe in me, and the GOD of nature too.

Be the water not the chalice rings true for both historical men.

And yes, words I live by every now of every now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/youtube]

And science..

Well..
Science provides a tremendous amount of evidence for an interconnecting force of all things that connects us all..

aka GOD the ONE i know of NATURE TRUE..too...

THIS GOD WILL NOT FIT IN ANY BOOK..:)

It's way too big.

And still mysterious.. too..;)

It would be the same with anyone, rudeness, arrogance, deliberate ignorance, preaching, ect.

O.k

I believe science does know how bicycles work, but not knowing everything is not an excuse to believe nonsense.

This is not actually true. Science knows how a bicycle works. What they have found is that it just that the gyroscopic effect is not needed (although all conventional bicycle depend on it in part). It is actually the angles of the frame that are the major factors in steering corrections. I looked this study up a while back (2010 or 2011) and it was just some guys who built a bicycle that does not need the gyroscopic effect, and nothing more. Although this has been seized on by plenty of "news" outlets as proof that science is wrong.

And before you try to say no one knows how planes can take off or even stay in the air (another falsehood frequently cited as fact), I'll just let you know that plenty of physicists know exactly how. More than one grad student has made it the subject of their thesis in one shape or another, and it turns out that it is a fairly easy thesis to defend (although it is a bit on the lazy side).

Watch "Five simple questions science CAN'T ANSWER - This?" on YouTube
Five simple questions science CAN'T ANSWER - This?: http://youtu.be/YHCounW3VO0

Last edited by yournamehere on 09 Sep 2014, 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Perhaps questions that science hasn't yet answered. However, this is not a weakness of science, it is a strength. The gaps in scientific knowledge don't justify filling them in with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. This is called the God of the Gaps Fallacy.

How do you know? Can you call a scientific theory a science of the gaps fallacy?
That statement can be just as boring as yours? This is fun. . The gaps in scientific knowledge does not justify filling them in with theoretical scientific mumbo-jumbo. This is called science of the gaps fallacy? Believing that science is going to explain everything has not been realized. It really is no different than believing that God is going to explain everything that has not either. Note: my interpretation of God may be different than yours anyways. It is more like the definition of a noun, than an actual sigular thing, person, or entity. It is love. That can be me or whatever else. It can be the same. Mutual. I like it that way, because unlike your definition, and most all religious definitions, it doesn't make me feel like crap.

Theory or hypothesis? Not that it matters as the answer remains 'no'.



Either you haven't heard of the scientific method or you are wilfully ignoring its existence. If it's the former, have a read of this: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

It is inherently unscientific to believe that 'science is going to explain everything'. We are very unlikely to run out of questions to answer.

No, this would be called conjecture. Conjecture, as you should know, is one of several useful tools which can help determine where and how to start looking for the actual answer. Either you simply do not care that you are erroneously using the term Scientific Theory to mean conjecture or you have no idea what a Scientific Theory actually is. This does not mean a scientific theory is inviolate, no one should suggest that a current theory is the final word on the subject, instead if a theory is disproven it is seen as a good approximation. Newtons laws of gravity are a good example of this, his law is wrong, yet it is a close enough approximation that is is still used today. For you to compare scientific progress and change to god of the gaps is plain ignorant.

Contemporary examples please?


Accepting that we will likely never understand everything does not lessen our knowledge nor should it allow for crackpot theories to be accepted. In my mind there is nothing so fallacious as "science does not know everything" as a defence for a nonsensical posit.

And lastly, the title of the video should be "Five questions science has not yet answered" non of them are simple, and saying science can't answer requires a time machine. Not only that, Sam Datta-Paulin has made the same mistake you and the new statesman made in presenting the bike evidence . Which again goes to show that rather than listening to quick 8 minute videos by broadcast journalists it is more advisable to read complete papers or at least summaries from people who have the necessary experience to write them.

Okay.

Lets compromise.

Keep on teaching evolution in schools because science has disproven the account in Genesis.

But we should START teaching school kids that each and every bicycle rider is constantly followed by invisible guardian angel to keep them upright at all times because science has yet to disprove that.

Works for me.

Of course you have to redefine traditional concepts of God because the character they describe is not worthy of worship. And by a relative lack of definition, we avoid the trouble of having to justify our beliefs, after all they make us feel good, and God's nature is beyond our power to ascertain anyway.

How do we know science works, and scientific guess are better than random guesses? Technology. If science didn't work, there would be no technological progress. What has religion given us? At best, hope in the irrational. Is that worth it for all it's cost? In these times, having a sound foundation in reality seems to me to be more important. How else can we confront our unique challenges? Religion has a purpose, but these can be achieved by secular means, free from superstition and attachment to outdated moral codes.