The Religion Group is Starting to Look Very Familiar

[MineralMan]

I'm not sure that's in a good way, though. I'll reserve judgment for a while.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. I think someone brought in another (old) carpet.

[guillaumeb]

2. Are you accusing someone here of being a banned poster?

Perhaps you should alert the proper authorities.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. My, aren't we excitable today.

[guillaumeb]

24. Well, you did make what sounded like an accusation. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Did it? I'm not sure.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Smells better in here already.

[trotsky]

60. Looks like it was a well-founded one, too.

Pity about your friend.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

61. Looks like they were 100% right.

Anything you want to say about it now?

[guillaumeb]

3. Some prefer harmony.

Others appreciate the role of discord.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Some like to toss out trite quips they found on the back a cereal box.

[guillaumeb]

6. Which begs the question:

What is your favorite cereal?

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. That's not what begging the question means.

Begging the Question is when the writer or speaker assumes as true the statement or question under examination. It does not mean, "Oh, that made me think of this question."

The answer is Captain Crunch with Crunch Berries. I don't care if they tear the shit out of the roof of my mouth, I would eat them all damned day if I could.

[guillaumeb]

22. Are crunch berries bits of sugar? eom

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Oh my goodness thank you for calling that out.

I'd given up on it some time ago.

[Eko]

5. Harmony requires that we all act a certain way.

Like apply the same rules to ourselves that we use on others.

[guillaumeb]

7. But if different rules apply for different fields,

what happens at that point?

I like to listen to differnt types of music. But I do not compare rock and opera. Each fits a different musical need.

[Eko]

10. But both rock and opera

follow the exact same western music theory. The same rules.

[guillaumeb]

11. Perhaps my metaphor was weak.

But science and faith are such different fields that judging one by the other is useless. I freely admit that faith requires no proof, so if that is foreign to the more science minded at DU, I understand.

[Eko]

14. An idea is not science.

[MineralMan]

8. Do you think I'm disharmonious, guillaumeb?

I'm not. I do have opinions.

[guillaumeb]

9. As a musician, I appreciate both harmony and discord.

What I dislike most is condescension, even as I am guilty of it myself.

It is unlikely that anyone here will be convinced of anything regarding the theism/atheism debate.

[MineralMan]

12. I value honesty and forthrightness highly.

I dislike subterfuge and masquerade intensely. You may make of that what you choose.

[guillaumeb]

13. I value politeness as well.

It generally inspires the same in others.

[MineralMan]

15. I see.

I'll try to remember that as I read. Politeness is not incompatible with honesty and forthrightness in any way. It is entirely incompatible with the other two things I mentioned, however.

[trotsky]

53. Can't wait for you to show it.

You could start by refusing to define atheism for atheists, as you keep insisting you can do. That'd be really nice. Will you do that?

[Eko]

17. I think you meant

dissonance.

[guillaumeb]

23. No, I meant discord.

[Eko]

27. Its nice how you can reply to this,

but cant on an idea is not science.

[guillaumeb]

28. Your reply did not conflict with my own position.

[Eko]

29. And what position is that?

[guillaumeb]

30. #11 in this thread.

[Eko]

31. How is an idea sicence?

[guillaumeb]

32. I never said that it was.

[Eko]

33. then why did my idea require proof?

[guillaumeb]

34. You posed a theory.

I asked questions about that theory. And other theories posed by other posters. Is that not what science is? Asking questions?

[Eko]

36. Nope, you said it had no evidence.

"The idea of an endless series of explosions/expansions/contractions as an explanation assumes far too much on no evidence.

And when I ask where did the matter come from that provided the mass for these things, there is never an actual answer."

Why did that idea require evidence but yours does not?

[guillaumeb]

37. Because, if one is to claim that science deals with facts,

and that science is verifiable, that implies that any claims made by scientists should be treated as dealing with facts, not philosophy.

If I state that I have faith that the Creator started the Big Bang, that is an admittedly unprovable statement of faith. But if a scientist speculates or theorizes that the universe may have started because of........whatever, one might ask what evidence exists to support such a statement.

And if there is no evidence, the speculation is simply that.

[Eko]

38. I am not a scientist.

[guillaumeb]

39. Neither am I.

[Eko]

40. Then why do I need to provide evidence?

[guillaumeb]

41. You personally do not.

But if a scientist makes a claim, that is different.

So my questions are posed about the theory, not to you personally to answer. You were simply the one who mentioned the theory.

[Eko]

42. And Im the one you asked, on that thread.

Can you show me where a scientist has made the same claim as I have? Because I have looked an none have. So once again it was my idea that you required evidence for.
Its all right there on that thread.
"The idea of an endless series of explosions/expansions/contractions as an explanation assumes far too much on no evidence.
And when I ask where did the matter come from that provided the mass for these things, there is never an actual answer."
"Where did the matter come from that formed all of these black holes? eom"

[guillaumeb]

43. A fair question:

A cyclic model (or oscillating model) is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, or indefinite, self-sustaining cycles. For example, the oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

And:

This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.[2] In 2011, a five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies and spanning 7 billion years of cosmic time confirmed that "dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds."[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

[Eko]

44. and where do they say anything

about super massive black holes?

[guillaumeb]

45. I only read this one reference.

But the idea that you referenced is current, if in a modified form.

[Eko]

46. Let me know when you find it.

Otherwise no scientist has said what I said. Like I said, I've looked.

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. No, no, no, no.

You completely misunderstand what is meant by non-overlapping magesteria. NOMA isn't about who is speaking. NOMA is about the question being asked.

"How did the universe come to exist?" is a scientific question. Any proposed answer to this question, regardless of who provides it, is subject to scientific scrutiny.

[longship]

18. An interesting story about Charles Ives at Boston Symphony Hall.

He was there for the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra Boston premier. The person sitting next to him spent the time during the performance fussing and fuming.

Finally, getting fed up with this guy's antics, Ives said to him "Sir! Be still. Shut up and take your dissonances like a man."

Probably apocryphal, and I am undoubtedly making up the quotation, however I have heard this anecdote for decades.

[guillaumeb]

35. Dissonance is essential to some pieces.

So yes, a music lover should take it and like it.

[longship]

47. I would like to play my part as Charles Ives.

Theists have made their own bed in this case. NOMA is dead, mainly on theists' own claims which extend their faith beliefs into science's territory. It's not just Hamm and his creationist fools. It's the entire GOP theocratic lunatic assylum. The extent that theists do not understand that they might be propping up this foolishness is the extent to which our republic is in real danger.

I fight this rubbish by aiming at the core of the idiocy, the faith beliefs themselves.

Thank you for the polite colloquy.

[guillaumeb]

62. I feel that if some theists insist that a literal

interpretation of the Genesis story, for example, is science, they miss the point of the NOMA. So NOMA is dead for them, or not applicable.

But many scientists are religious, and are able to reconcile religion and science using NOMA.

Thank you as well. It takes at least 2 for a polite conversation.

[newcriminal]

20. Thank god. The topics being posted were becoming stale as a dorm after a keg.

[trotsky]

51. So breaking the rules is OK then, huh?

Good luck with that.

[opiate69]

49. !

[trotsky]

50. Evidently it's a very "Christian" thing to do when you get banned from a message board..

you break the rules and make a new (or use someone else's) account and continue the exact same behavior that got you banned.

And yet somehow it's the atheists who aren't civil enough.

[MineralMan]

52. Well, I'm not sure about how generic "Christians" think or act.

I am sure, however, that if the group returns to its old domination by a couple of individuals who constantly post things negative in nature regarding atheism, I'll be doing the same thing I did the last time until some sort of balance is restored.

I won't put up with the same pattern that existed here the last time I stopped visiting this group. At one point, some people were following me around in other areas of DU and posting irrelevant ancient crap from over a decade ago almost every time I took a position on anything.

At times, it seemed like people were notifying other people and providing links to them somewhere. I don't know if that was the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. Things got better for some time recently. I'm sorry to see the same pattern being woven again into things.

I have a great deal of patience with most stuff, but it has some limits.

[Iggo]

54. Get some!

[DavidDvorkin]

55. The Ignore function helps a lot.

[MineralMan]

56. I don't use it.

I'm not willing to lock myself out of discussions. That would defeat the entire reason I am here.

[DavidDvorkin]

57. Without it, I'd have to stop reading some forums entirely.

[MineralMan]

59. Things tend to resolve on their own over time.

I just try to be patient.