@bosskev: LOL

Sora57

@Rabid Penguin: Wow, a virtual Mr. Science in our midst, thanks for the info--even if it did leave my conversions challenged head spinning a little.

So you've got Fahrenheit, Celsius, etc. But are you sure there is no temperature grading system that starts with the letter "U"? Sure would have livened up the chart with a bit of high school gigglery.

bosskev

@remps: The NYTs just made it ok to dig steampunk

thechansen

When I saw the picture before reading the headline, I immediately assumed it was another one of Giz's unhealthy obsession with steampunk articles. Sorry guys, steampunk is just weird.

remps

@Sora57: But this is fancy elitist science talk. I don't want our beloved Fahrenheits corrupted by these "scientists" (aka Baby Jesus haters). This is America, let those Euro sissy commies talk make believe with their make believe temperatures.

thechansen

@Sora57:
Big bang for big bucks.

tanvach

@thechansen:
The article says 0.0003°Fahrenheit(F) above Absolute Zero which is −459.67°F so that would be:

-459.6697°F
~ -273.14983°C
~ .00016 K
~ .0003°R

F = Fahrenheit
C = Celsius
K = Kelvin
R = Rankine

Kelvin is the absolute temperature scale for Celsius and Rankine is the absolute temperature scale for Fahrenheit.

Rabid Penguin

@Sora57:
You should see doctor about your universe, since that isn't normal.

takashimike

"Scientists also believe that when two large, planar bodies, referred to as branes, collide in the universe, they release enough energy to create a rapid expansion that can spawn a new universe "

Cordfucious says that's pregnancy.

Moral: Branes make the world go round..

Cordfucious

@thechansen:
Absolute zero on the fahrenheit scale is −459.67 degrees. So that would place this experiment at .0003 above that.

And that was far from a no "braner." Sorry, had to go there.

Sora57

0.0003°F??? Kelvin or centigrade!!

thechansen

The state of my universe after the big bang is "sleepy."

Sora57

@Sora57:
I never really thought of that though... FCKR is a great way to remember the different temperature scales. Just don't mention it to your science teacher.

Rabid Penguin

@bosskev:
lol. I don't think there is temperature scale one for U.

The conversions are quite simple though, you just need to know what absolute zero is in Celsius and Fahrenheit.

C = −273.15 °C
F = −459.67 °F

And the conversion for Fahrenheit to Celsius. It's easy enough to reverse it.

C = (F − 32) * 5 / 9

Kelvin is the absolute temperature for Celsius, so 0 K = −273.15 °C, and Rankine is the absolute temperature for Fahrenheit, so 0 °R = −459.67 °F.

No body probably cares, but I thought I'd post it in case you're used to dealing with Fahrenheit and someone tells you it's over 400 °C outside, and you're wondering what the hell that means and if it's safe to leave the house.

Rabid Penguin

But EVERYONE knows...the world is only 6,000 years old!! Jesus told me. Amen.

johnnyabnormal

I've seen that before, thats the cosmic key.

+ Watch video

gonzaleznj

@Rabid Penguin: FCKR? Sounds like the name of a new Moto phone. Maybe it can be their big comeback... =D

Thanks for sharing this article Giz, I found this tidbit quite interesting and plan to read more about the subject soon.

nightmajik

Hey, Rabid Penguin, hang around Gizmodo long enough and you'll see that eventually every topic devolves to potty-mouthisms. Pretty much changes the way you look at the world, in a Beavis'n'Butthead kind of way. Oh, and thanks for the followup conversions info. Got it.

So, 400 °C outside just means I'll need a bathing suit and a lot of suntan lotion, right?

bosskev

Even if this is possible... why is no one thinking "this is a bad idea?"

Dawn

This should be a nice slap in the face to those people that believe in creationism or the bs know as "intelligent design". Go Science.

eimajuno

...screw a 'finger-sized tube'. Bring on the LHC and the GRID--send a full-sized DVD from Britain to Japan in two seconds. Badass.

iesvs

@eimajuno: How is this a slap in the face to creationism? Figuring these things out doesn't mean that God wasn't behind them. I'm sure when somebody figured out what the sun actually was, they thought it was a "slap in the face" too. None of this "science" really explains what the universe is about or why, if it's all just random molecules, I'm sitting right here with my own conscience and perspective. How did "I" come to inhabit this brain and set of cells? The answer is not "cold helium."

bandit

@johnnyabnormal: "...the world is only 6,000 years old!! Jesus told me."

OK, OK, I can do this creationist-to-scientific conversion all on my own. Lessee, 6,000 years on the Gregorian calendar...umm...account for cross-cultural validations, so factor in Maya and Aztec calendars...ignore Julian calendar (don't need even more ancient white people's autocracy mucking things up)...add in a whole bunch of leap years...yup, then multiply by 5/9ths...divide by pi (6 slices, preferably cherry)...scribble...scribble...carry the 2...scribble...scribble.

GOT IT! So, from a non-theistic perspective, the universe is actually exactly 5.87 days old, starting somewhere during the end credits of last Friday's "Battlestar Galactica"!

So, how'd I do, Rabid Penguin? Is my math correct? Do I get a gold star? (He asked, beaming with pride.)

bosskev

@bosskev:
Not bad. You show great potential.

@eimajuno:
That's sort of a benighted thing to say.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

It's still true today. "Science" is very political and doesn't take well to new ideas or concepts. I for one don't believe in the Big Bang, or Evolution, and I also don't subscribe to the idea of man made global warming. I think this idea of consensus science really slows down our progress towards bigger and better things.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei

Rabid Penguin

@johnnyabnormal: a catholic priest developed the big bang theory. you fail, sir.

blehh

Are we talking about the TV show?? :D

Mike918

The big bang is the explanation for us, reasoning apes to explain the universe and time. No one can come to grips that everything has been here for ever and will be forever, just as the idea that we are the only planet with living creatures. This is the reality for us, other worlds and dimensions probably exist and we will be gone and something else will pop up in another part of the universe.

I believe the entity we call "god" it's just a bunch of universal rules of statistics and randomization algorithms, that since we have only had intelligence for 150,000 years have yet to understand.

The only thing that have come close to identifying god is the chaos theory and the hindu and buddhist religions and they call it KARMA:

Law of Karma

All living creatures are responsible for their karma - their actions and the effects of their actions

once we embrace that "everything we do is what "god" intented for us and that moment and we provoke it , we will understand that we need to be good, which is the base of all religions and what everyone says is the key to let "GOD" give you good things...

I know it sounds crazy, but that's my opinion...

VakeroRokero

@bandit:

You don't "inhabit" your cells..

YOU ARE YOUR CELLS.

Your an animal just like any other animal on this planet. You merely have a more evolved brain that is aware of it's own existence. And has more complex thinking patterns.

If god is real, then what created god?

Kakkoister

@bandit: You came to inhabit that set of cells because of a large amount of cosmic mistakes. All accidental in nature, your genealogy could be traced back to the first molecules ever created. In fact, the molecules which make up your cells and proteins and amino acids are actually just as old as the universe itself. All of this technology that we've created is irrelevant in the face of our true reality of being.

So wouldn't it be an insult to God to say that this system which has worked flawlessly and has even created what we perceive to be "life," was crudely put together by a man who was bored one week?

I'd say so.

dvicklund

@VakeroRokero:

The "Big Bang" is Creationism masquerading as Science...

winexprt

@Rabid Penguin:

That was the point of my comment.

Why choose one of 2 equally unproven beliefs?

Why not just wait till you die and see what the truth is.

I could claim that a giant penis created us and wants our main goal in life to enjoy our bodies. It has just as much validity as any religion.

God is something we created as an answer to our questions. Because science barely existed in those times. It was the only logical answer at the time.

But with how advanced we are now, we have the technology to explore and find the truth to answers.

Kakkoister

@Crowbot: wow! now i know why they posted this in the middle of the night.

oo0cyst0oo

hold on guys, i think i can clear this up... i saw it on futurama.

blinking lights. oh, and lots of the tube people will fight.

oo0cyst0oo

If god is real why did he create an imperfect universe for seriously imperfect beings incapable of even knowing it's infinite expanses?

Crowbot

wow what if we find out our own universe is just in a pinky sized tube somewhere through these experiments? maybe our universe is inside that tube right now. wooooah.

undeadmachine

@Kakkoister:
God has always been.

The same question could be asked of you though. If you don't believe in God, how did everything get here? You would have me believe that matter is eternal and has no creator, how is that any different.

That's such a silly question.

Rabid Penguin

Ah, how some squabble about the fairy tales they believe to be so true...

@bosskev: Don't forget Ron L. Hubbard's followers, or you'll flunk your personality test.

@blehh: Indeed, sir. You can't deny that those Roman hands do some roamin'.

@dvicklund: I would use words like mutation, genetic drift, environment and increment before "accident" when referring to evolution.

@Kakkoister: We are all glorified monkeys...

@Rabid Penguin: It's not a silly question. Simple logic dictates that the burden of proof is upon the "God" believer. The "God" construct is absurdly flimsy when held up for examination. Faith trades evidence for fear and ignorance. At least science requires observation, reason and proof... All through history, Gods are like fads that come and go. Hopefully, someday, humans will evolve beyond the crutch of faith and demand proof as knowledge, while simultaneously being comfortable with the unknown. Humans don't need the blanks filled in by superstitious lies.

johnnyabnormal

Men in Black, must be real.. we're a whole different universe inside a locker..

you can believe in god, but i believe your an idiot.

darkilliminated

What is mind?
Doesn't matter.

What is matter?
Never mind.

strider_mt2k

did no one seriously say 'what if god caused the big bang?' I may have skipped sentences here and there throughout this comment section but i do not, can not believe the simplest argument was overlooked. riddle me this batman: who says god didn't cause the big bang to happen? these 'universal laws and algorithms' and 'random occurrences," could they not be 'god?' and if not, if they are just complete happen stances of the multi-verse, aren't they worth 'worshipping?' scientists worship. they worship rules and guidelines; laws of nature. if not for them what would you have? and if you 'worship' it, can you not call it a 'god?' So who did it? Yours or there's?

fyi: non-religious, non-athesist. just thinking.

mutantshark

it's easier not to think you know.

@strider_mt2k: don't you sleep? gizmodo does. let a blog rest. ;)

oo0cyst0oo

@Rabid Penguin: You would think NASA was posting on Giz with all the math/units confusion.

bms

so to sum up the thread.

short answer: yes with an if
long answer: no with a but

B1663R

these guys are going to rip open the space time thingy and cause a tear in the space or something and then we'll have real life half life.

FinalValgas

@johnnyabnormal:

Most comprehensive response to a religious topic if i've ever heard one. well done.

To those who say w"what if god made the big bag", we say "what if you go and prove that now..."

Just remember, the ancient egyptians thought they had the whole "god" thing figured out... so did the ancient greeks...and the vikings... don't see many people worshipping Zeus or Ra or Thor anymore... The rest of the religions will follow suit and eventually die off and be replaced - such is the evolution of religion...

gover57

@mutantshark:
"Laws of nature" aren't rules and guidelines, they are observations and explanations to what we...observe.

Now on the other hand, Occam's razor is a wonderful concept, cuts any gods right out of the picture.

Bitstuff

@oo0cyst0oo:
I typically sleep about 6 hours a night.

That comment was made after attending to my cat who had awakened me ahead of schedule.

A little Gizmodo and some warm milk...

strider_mt2k

@jjlrn1: Not some mythical creature thought up by humans, that's for sure.

liveinvt

My finger sized tube carries the secret of the little bang.

Slartibartfast

@Kakkoister: If the universe is real then what created the universe?

jjlrn1

@bosskev: @bosskev: Yeah, see, what you did was you forgot to divide by the snake-handlers. So the universe actually begins in about 20 minutes. You still have time to grab a coffee before your boss exists. I'm friend-listing you, mainly to keep an eye on you.

ChromiumSwitch

Way to mix apples and oranges, amigos. Science won't bolster your theology, and God won't ever help you understand your physics homework. Go eat some breakfast and don't get your knickers in a twist.

ChromiumSwitch

Okay, you're all wrong. The universe started a little over 42 years ago, when I first gained consciousness. The rest of you are just figments of my imagination, created to keep myself occupied. You'll all cease to exist in 30-40 years, barring a mishap before then.

And there's a teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars.

Honestly, that makes more sense than any "god" folks make up.

TommySez

@johnnyabnormal: Not really sir. The rules of conventional debate state that the burden of proof is on the challenger, not the established. If we're going by age to determine which is more established, then creationism doesn't have to answer for itself. Granted, I think it's a good idea to do so anyway.

@Bitstuff: Do you even know what Occam's Razor is? What could possibly be simpler to understand than "God did it?" Science takes the long way around, by comparison.

@Crowbot: I get really sick of hearing people make this pointless arguement. The created object can never be as great as the creator. Basic thermodynamics, really. The fact that if there is a God, you wouldn't be able to understand the smallest detail of his plans is why YOU don't get to be called God in the first place. Besides, get your theology straight. The world was perfect, until humans screwed with it. Free will can bite you that way.

If you really get into the science (and I'm NOT talking about college Physics 101 here, I'm talking newer and deeper stuff), you always end up at a point where you're just shrugging shoulders. There's WAY more stuff we don't know than stuff we do, and to claim that science has figured out the origins of life is just asinine. Having studied a little myself, I honestly can't see any reason why science and God can't get along. God creates natural physical laws, and nature obeys. Why isn't that an option anymore? Creationists and Darwinists, lay down you weapons and just shut up! It may be that one or the other is the actual answer (we'll never know until we're dead, and then only if creationism is right), but until we find out, stop being so damned hostile and try being rational and reasonable, for therein lies science.

DaOtter

Philosophy on Giz, who knew? As for me, it's time for the weekend, so I'm going to use my 11th finger and do another kind of big banging.

Was that too subtle?

Sora57

whackos

alternatereality

@Rabid Penguin: god has always been?!

you ignorant twerp, how could this be an explanation for anything?
nothing is forever just like this, there are explanations and fact is, we still don't know them, but to say: oh, this is all the work of some god so don't ask any questions is the most stupid way I've ever heard of

alternatereality

@eimajuno: The goal of scientific research is to better understand the mechanics of the universe, not to discredit creationists. Since Creation, God, Christ and all other components of religious texts are simply not scientific, they're simply not mentioned, which is fair enough. We can leave the God vs. not-God dunnit stuff to philosophy class =P

Kaiser-Machead

@Crowbot:
Really? Are you unfamiliar with the book of Genesis.

@Kakkoister:
Why not just wait till you die and see what the truth is.
When you die it's to late to change your mind.

@johnnyabnormal:
It is a silly question, because that same burden of proof would then rest upon the non-believer as to where matter came from. The answer to that question lies outside the realm of science. It may be God, it may not be God, but science cannot prove one way or another.

The "God" construct is absurdly flimsy when held up for examination. Faith trades evidence for fear and ignorance.
What would you say to Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, the list goes on, about their belief in a god. These were great men of science and didn't see their belief in God as a crutch. I don't think the god of the Bible is a fad...parachute pants, that's was a fad.

Science is your religion, and Man is your god. You are just as religious as the people you say are ignorant for being religious. You would do good for yourself to look up what science is and what science is not.

@bms:
I'm not really sure what you mean... are you saying my math is wrong or is this an attempt at a joke? It's too early in the morning for me. My day doesn't start until after lunch lol
:c)

@Bitstuff:
Ockham himself was a theist.

Rabid Penguin

What happens when this new "Universe" begins spawning new life forms and all the Pro-Lifers get involved and throw a hissy fit over killing these new beings?

Probably tho - when this new "Universe" comes into existence - the scientists will not have calculated the fact that our Universe expanded from some microscopic molecule to the size of several Galaxies in the first nano-second of it's existance - then somehow will not have made the connection about "Universes" forming before it's too late and we won't even know what happened_

They'll succeed in 4 years and prove the Mayans right abut the end of "the world" in 2012_

uberfu

@johnnyabnormal: No, logic dictates the burden of proof of God's existence lies with Him. None of us have any right to question what another person believes about God, since we only have first hand experience from our own perspective. The only way a person can know of God's existence is if God Himself tells them.
The best any of us can do is to tell others about our own experiences that have led us to believe or not believe in God, then we must allow them to come to their own conclusions. Then (and this is the most important part) RESPECT their decision.

@Kaiser-Machead:I couldn't agree more. I don't want my kids to be taught religion at school any more than a creationist wants science taught to them at church.

NCMO

@DaOtter: Actually, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not on the one refuting that claim, since it is not logically possible to prove a negative. Since each side is making its own claims, each side has its own burden of proof. In my experience, it seems that the scientific community has better tools to back up its claim than the religious community does.

And of course science doesn't have all the answers. By its very nature, scientific thought will never be "complete," because at its core it's a method of exploration, experimentation and explanation. I seriously doubt we will ever know every last secret of the universe and how it works, so the fact that the theories of physics and cosmology are incomplete doesn't invalidate them.

I'm not religious myself, but I agree that it's possible that God simply set the universe in motion and sat back to watch it spin. However, that's not what science is trying to prove or disprove - the scientific community is trying to find out the how of the matter, not the why.

Also, your interpretation of Occam's Razor misses the target. How is saying, "An invisible bearded man who defies causality that nobody can see but who must be obeyed through his earthly representatives created the universe," simpler than any other explanation? The implications of the statement "God did it" are incredibly complex.

@Rabid Penguin: I concur that there are political problems within the scientific community that should be addressed. However, without peer review and multiple sets of results from multiple methods of experimentation, it's a whole lot harder to verify results and incorporate outside data. Not only do scientists stand on the shoulders of their predecessors (to paraphrase Einstein), but on the shoulders of their peers as well. Scientific thought advances faster when there is a larger community supporting it.

Also, as a short aside, pretty much all biological science (from the chemical/molecular level to the biosphere at large) supports the concept of evolution above any other explanation. Why is it unreasonable to believe that God may have simply designed the universe in such a way that life arises relatively easily through the process of evolution?

Ubik2501

@Rabid Penguin: I have to say, I've not seen so many misuses of logic in a single post in a long time. We have multiple appeals to authority. We have Pascal's Wager in there. We have crass name calling and sort of a false dichotomy. There's a really amazing lack of understanding of burden of proof. (I stand by my belief in Russell's Teapot.) We have misuse of Ockham's razor in previous posts.

Look, believe what you want to believe. But note this. The chances of your personal conception of a god being the correct one approaches zero. There are, literally, an infinite number of different potential god scenarios. Your shot at getting it correct is infinitesimally small. If you still want to believe it, fine. Go ahead. But don't drag science down to your level. It has its problems to be sure. But it's not guesswork. It's better than that.

TommySez

@DaOtter: It's true, sir. God is not established or proven...but just a fart passing in the wind when some ancient people couldn't figure out why it rained.

@NCMO:

"No, logic dictates the burden of proof of God's existence lies with Him."

Hahahaha...well? Is he going to smite this thread?

"None of us have any right to question what another person believes about God, since we only have first hand experience from our own perspective."

Wrong. Like any thought construct, religion is not immune to criticism. Making it taboo to question it is to wage a war on intelligence.

"The only way a person can know of God's existence is if God Himself tells them. "

So you believe George Bush proved the existence of "God" when he told the nation "God" told him to invade Iraq?

"The best any of us can do is to tell others about our own experiences that have led us to believe or not believe in God, then we must allow them to come to their own conclusions."

Experiences like, brainwashing from a early age?

"Then (and this is the most important part) RESPECT their decision."

I don't have to respect lies, greed, wars, molestation, racism, sexism, homophobism or anti-science. If anyone's religion encourages or promotes these? No respect.

@Rabid Penguin: I always laugh my ass off when the religious claim that science is a religion or that I "worship" anything. Science is the opposite of religion. Maybe you should look up what Atheist means before you ask me to look up what science means. You clearly don't know the meaning of either. You should also look up how many great scientists were "believers" after Darwin started publishing. Btw, don't even try Hawkins or Einstein. They have been quoted up and down saying they aren't believers. Slowly, mankind is waking up from the folklore. It doesn't happen overnight.

"Why not just wait till you die and see what the truth is.
When you die it's to late to change your mind."

Ah, the classic covert or torture technique. If anyone has a doubt, instill fear!! Repent or burn!! Jesus saves!! *signs the cross on his chest and floats up to heaven*

News flash: The non-believers don't need proof of where matter came from. They are comfortable not knowing while looking for said proof. Religion is comfortable making up lies in place of proof so that you can sleep at night. The garden can be very beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies living at the bottom of it.

johnnyabnormal

How long is a day when there are no planets or stars?

Or, how long are the days on God's calender?

Suijin

@TommySez:
Where are my many misuses of logic? Where is the name calling?

Rabid Penguin

What the...

Where did this star next to my name come from?

johnnyabnormal

@Suijin: also a day is relative to what planet you happen to be standing on at a given moment_

As the rotational period of all planets in our Solar System vary from one to the next_

mars takes nearly twice as long to travel full circle around the sun as the earth and rotates nearly half as fast - set your watch to that and see what happens_

uberfu

.

uberfu

@Suijin: the concept of "time" is an invention of man_

This came about as we discovered the earth revolving around the sun and the earth rotating on it's axis_

It helped early [and modern] societies cope with the seasons and the world around us_

uberfu

@Rabid Penguin: Also: I might even argue that Atheists might value conscious life more than those who believe in a afterlife. You don't see us blowing ourselves up, do you?

johnnyabnormal

@Rabid Penguin: The reason I see science and religion as opposites is pretty obvious: One demands evidence, the other does not.

So you're saying *if* a "God" exists, your "option" was before when you died? I'm more into the first way you stated it...nothing. I imagine it's similar to sleeping without dreaming. Better yet, it's probably like before you were born. People are so freaked out about what happens to them after they die, yet almost none is obsessed with where they were before they were born!

"What "religion" actually promotes these things?"

More like, which ones don't? Atheists may seem like angry people, but wouldn't you be angry if you were always surrounded by people who thought the earth was flat? I'll be clear: No malice towards you, just the ideas.

johnnyabnormal

@Rabid Penguin: Don't use quotes around "atheists", it makes you look ignorant...

Plus, you're wrong.

@johnnyabnormal: The star appeared out of chaos...or you're just stellar. I'm sorry I couldn't have joined this little diatribe earlier but it appears you have all my points covered, hats off to you.

selcouth14

@johnnyabnormal:
I always laugh my ass off when people see science as the opposite to religion. They don't attempt to solve the same problems. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go"

Ah, the classic covert or torture technique. If anyone has a doubt, instill fear!! Repent or burn!! Jesus saves!! *signs the cross on his chest and floats up to heaven*
I was just stating fact. If God doesn't exist then when you die you will no longer exist and thus not know anything (including whether God exists lol), but if God does exist (specifically the God of the Bible) then when you die you will know whether God exists, but you will no longer have the option of going to heaven.

Convert or torture...lol. You can believe what you want, I wish no harm on you, and my statement doesn't make any claims that I do.

I don't have to respect lies, greed, wars, molestation, racism, sexism, homophobism or anti-science. If anyone's religion encourages or promotes these? No respect.
What "religion" actually promotes these things?

Maybe I'm wrong and it's just you, but you "atheists" seem like an angry people.

Rabid Penguin

@skyline6: "...i dunno if thats a word"

* must * resist * grammar/spelling nazi * snide * remark *

bosskev

@Crowbot:

Well if you ask about God then you ahve to concider Satin to...

and All the little troubles and imperficties (i dunno if thats a word :) ) are all his doings..

i dunno if anyone has heard of Einsteins things and about what he said on this topic? Check it out it explains it...

skyline6

.....middle of a Creationism vs Evolution Debate*.....

uberfu

@Rabid Penguin: "I don't have to respect lies, greed, wars, molestation, racism, sexism, homophobism or anti-science. If anyone's religion encourages or promotes these? No respect.
What "religion" actually promotes these things?"
Are you kidding?

The whole God arguement here - being the "god" from Christianity - Catholisism - Baptist - Mormon - Muslim - Jewish - pretty much all Western Religions_

Several Eastern Religions_

All Acient Religions - Mayans - Aztecs - Mongolians - Egyptians - Romans [pre-Christianity] - Incas and on and on_

Dude - it really seems like you are in the middle of a Creationism vs Evolution Deabate with no knowledge of what you are talking about with that question_

Go study the world's religions before you post again_

uberfu

@selcouth14:
So atheists (removed quotes to make you happy) aren't generally angry? So it's just johnnyabnormal then.

I'm not trying to prove there is a God, and I'm not saying you have to believe in God. I just don't know why you people have such a huge problem with people who do believe in God. Many great advancements have been made because of people who believe in God (as well as those who don't)... so what is the big issue?

Rabid Penguin

@johnnyabnormal: "Faith trades evidence for fear and ignorance. At least science requires observation, reason and proof..."

What have we learned through science that supports your faith in the lack of a God? Make no mistake, it is faith. Can't we all just get along?

@Rabid Penguin: "Maybe I'm wrong and it's just you, but you "atheists" seem like an angry people."

I have noticed the same thing. There's definitely anger at having their unprovable assertions challenged by those of lesser intellect. There would also seem to be hatred of the very possibility of a God.

@Slartibartfast: Loved your work on the fjords, BTW.

GadgetPlay

@Ubik2501:
Fair enough. I do hold a stereotypical view of atheists being angry people [in forums such as this], which may be unfair, and I accept the rebuke. Most of what I've read in forums (regardless of the forum) from atheists sounds angry though. It may not be an accurate portrayal of atheists, but most vocal atheists I've met seem to take the Richard Dawkins approach to religion... which just seems angry.

Rabid Penguin

@Rabid Penguin: I'm not arguing the fact that many believers contributed greatly to science and discovery, that's a known fact. But if they hadn't lived in a time where religious persecution was as rampant as it was, then who are we to say that they weren't closet atheists? Or perhaps with the technology and knowledge we have today they might have changed their minds as well.

It doesn't matter (ha!) what religion or belief anyone has as long as they are using scientific methods to verify their theories and help illuminate the path to understanding.

selcouth14

Ok guys, enough. Let's just go back to believing in the 3G iPhone rumor. The Jesus Phone is something we all want to believe in.

bandit

Atheists are no angrier than anyone else, but I see no reason why they shouldn't have the right to be. They're the most distrusted minority in America {[www.asanet.org] and it's a shame that our country is so intolerant of non-believers. And yet, they're not driving planes into buildings. The most irritating atheists want to rail against religious cultural symbols in government that is supposed to be neutral to religion anyway... big deal. The most irritating Christians want to thwart the progress of science and health education and legislate discrimination against homosexuals. I'd rather live with a bunch of Christmas-hating party poopers than theocratic, anti-intellectual assclowns who think everyone but them are hellbound fornicators.

s8ist

@Rabid Penguin: I consider myself apatheist more than anything else (meaning, the question of God is essentially irrelevant to my perspective of the world I live in now), but I suppose you could call me an atheist. I have been a member of several different churches and faiths in my lifetime, and I maintain friendships with people from those different communities. I have no inherent problem with religion itself - people are free to believe what they want and how they want. I hold no irrational anger or contention with any faith. In fact, most atheists I know are not antagonistic or irrationally angry.

However, it sticks in my craw when people use religion as a tool or an excuse to promote their own agendas and harm other people. I also take issue with religious adherents who attempt to tear down the intellectual constructs of our society with intolerance and bad logic. Demonizing atheists and atheism is intellectually dishonest and ethically questionable, and does nothing to promote your argument or anyone else's. Johnnyabnormal may be helping to perpetuate the "anti-religion" atheist stereotype, but you are ascribing that property to the atheist community at large without good reason to do so, and I consider that a sign of intolerance and ignorance on your part. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I'd ask that you remove the plank from your eye before crying "mote" on everyone else.

Ubik2501

@johnnyabnormal:
I see what you did there... :c)

Rabid Penguin

@skyline6: But satin feels so good. though I still prefer cotton, I am not one to be confused as a man of the cloth.

*puts back angry 300-style frown face for Rabid Penguin*

@Rabid Penguin: Maybe angry is the wrong word. How about...elevated level of frustration.

johnnyabnormal

Well, good luck proving that ^_^

citrush2o

@GadgetPlay: "@Slartibartfast: Loved your work on the fjords, BTW."

Yes, all the fiddly bits were stunning.

bosskev

@GadgetPlay: There are some atheists like this, but you're again showing your own bias and ignorance by ascribing anger and arrogance to all atheists. It's just as bad as if an atheist here had described all Christians as bigoted cavemen. Please stop using loaded words and absolutist generalities if you want your input to be taken seriously.

I respect your choice of faith and those of others as well. I hope you can do the same.

Ubik2501

"What have we learned through science that supports your faith in the lack of a God? Make no mistake, it is faith."

And then people wonder why we get angry.

Declining to believe in an infinitely improbable, all-powerful deity absent any proof of said deity isn't faith. If you're positing an infinitely improbable, all-powerful deity, then you need some proof to back that up. Absent that, there's no reason to believe in your god. Again, that's not faith. That's just common sense.

I haven't learned anything through science that makes a god impossible. (Nor have I through a load of philosophy classes.) As was said before, you can't prove a negative. That's why the burden is on the believer.

But, I haven't seen anything in science that requires the existence of a god. (And, before anyone uses it, the First-Mover argument is a poor argument.)

TommySez

@Rabid Penguin: "the lack of believing in God is not faith... it's the lack of faith."

It's a firmly held belief without evidence. It's not so much the lack of belief as it is a belief in the lack. TomAto, tomAHto. I just feel it's the other side of the same coin.

Where's your "star," BTW? I always enjoy your stuff.

GadgetPlay

@TommySez: "I haven't learned anything through science that makes a god impossible."

Thank you.

@Ubik2501: Sorry if I came across as too general, but the self-proclaimed atheists on this site (and others) generally behave in the manner I stated (I was just agreeing with another commenter, so I must not be alone in this observation).

Just to clear this up, I have not put forth a belief either way on this issue. To my mind, both sides come off badly if they won't admit that there's no evidence either way.

GadgetPlay

@GadgetPlay:
I'm a firm believer that there is a God and that Jesus Christ is that God, but I must agree with some other posters that the lack of believing in God is not faith... it's the lack of faith.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)

Rabid Penguin

@Babysealclubber:
I thought so :c)

You are correct there are different definitions for faith. One can probably safely assume that the definition of faith that someone would attempt to apply to atheists would be the same definition of faith that atheists would apply to them (in reference to GadgetPlay's comment).

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." - American Heritage Dictionary

There is your dictionary quote. ;c)

Rabid Penguin

That last comment was directed @Rabid Penguin, Sorry.

Babysealclubber

^^^ Praise the Lawd!

Negative points for quoting the bible instead of a dictionary though. ;)

There are actually two definitions to the word 'faith.' One which is used to describe a belief in God based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, and one which is used more colloquially, which means complete trust or confidence in someone or something. (actual dictionary definitions)

So depending on how the word is used, I have no problem being told I have faith, as long as the person is saying that I have confidence in an idea. In this case, my faith is backed up by falsifiable evidence.

I would advise other atheists to calm down when other people say that you have faith. It's an issue of semantics, which is a common problem when dealing with religious persons. (I would know, because I was one for the first 19 years of my life.)

-BSC-

Babysealclubber

Stupid commenting system. This double post ruins my last one.

Babysealclubber

@Rabid Penguin: Thanks, I was quoting Oxford something or other. I don't know for sure, it came with my computer. :)

I tend to be sensitive to people talking past each other, just because they can't agree on the definition of a word. It takes time to sort out, and not everyone thinks it's important, so maybe that's why people don't bother? I find that when people understand exactly what the other person is saying that the level of anger and frustration goes way down.

I don't think this is the only source of anger among atheists though. Often times in these types of discussions, and this typically applies to the christian side of the argument, logical fallacies are used without even a passing thought. I think people should educate themselves before engaging in serious philosophical/scientific debate.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Then again, as one commenter told me recently, this is Gizmodo, not the New York Times. Flame On! ;) *flips off everyone, scampers like a startled rabbit*

Babysealclubber

Does This Finger Sized Tube Carry The Secrets of the Big Bang?

survey says.... no

well.. that was a big letdown..
maybe I can dry my laundry with it.

SeventhExile

@Rabid Penguin: Just to comment a bit more on the issue of faith, your definition states that it is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I argue that the theory of evolution is based on logic and material evidence. The material evidence being an extensive fossil record cataloguing many many species, which have been extinct for a long time. They, as well as all current species, are genetically related to each other, and show a lot of variation. The logic then is that they started with common ancestors and evolved into increasingly varied forms, until they formed new species. This is science's best understanding (simplified, of course) of the way that life has formed on Earth.

On the other hand we have God, who most christians will admit is beyond the logic of mortal man, and no material evidence that I am aware of. A christian could argue, as I once did, that the fact that the universe exists is evidence of God.

I am not an expert in physics, so I may not be fully qualified to rebut the argument. My limited understanding of the origins of the universe comes from "A Brief History Of Time." I do know that the big bang is the scientific communities best answer to what actually happened, and the experiment being conducted with this finger sized object will help us come closer to a secular understanding of where we came from.

I think that GadgetPlay doesn't know what he is talking about, and is just demonstrating his ignorance of science and the english language. Just MHO of course.

-BSC-

Babysealclubber

Let me rephrase my last statement:

People who make the argument that atheists are just as guilty of belief without proof are just demonstrating their lack of understanding in science and the english language, both because the definition of faith in this instance is belief without logic and evidence, and because science is based on logic and evidence.

Babysealclubber

@johnnyabnormal:
I believe in the virgin birth :c) ... or was that an inside joke that I'm missing?

... I'm probably part of the joke now huh?

Rabid Penguin

@Babysealclubber: Couldn't have said it better myself.

johnnyabnormal

Why do I have a problem with the word "faith" used to describe my views? Because this word is often used by believers to inject the religious "faith" definition into places it does not apply. Like in science or Atheism. Already on this thread, I have been told:

"Science is your religion, and Man is your god. You are just as religious as the people you say are ignorant for being religious."

@GadgetPlay: Welcome back to a familiar topic. Tell me, do you believe in virgin birth?

johnnyabnormal

@Rabid Penguin: Judging by your previous comments, I am making the assumption that you studied/study science. Which field?

I'm just curious. Not a trick question. No inside jokes. I promise ;) Can't say the same for Johnny's comment though.

Babysealclubber

@Rabid Penguin: Ah... But then with Jesus lacking all those chromosomes, would he be technically classified as mentally retarded?

@Babysealclubber: Muhahahaha!

johnnyabnormal

@Rabid Penguin: Never had candied yams before, sounds like it would be good, because it's candy, but then again, it's a yam.

Babysealclubber

@johnnyabnormal: You despicable person! You can't challenge a miracle with reason! LoL

*Scratches imaginary beard thoughtfully*

On the other hand, maybe this is how Jesus got all his super powers? Maybe if we had half of our genetic information removed, we could be more like Jesus?

/not serious

Babysealclubber

@Babysealclubber:
I'm a computer programmer... I took a physics class in college and a bunch of science classes in high school. I just really enjoy this subject.

I also really like folk and blues music, video games, movies, conspiracy theories (even if I don't believe them), candied yams, books with pictures, and other things that I like.

Now you probably know more about me than you cared to.

@johnnyabnormal:
=O

Rabid Penguin

@Babysealclubber:"I argue that the theory of evolution is based on logic and material evidence."

I don't think anyone is arguing against evolution. Do you have anything about the possible existence of a God? That is where the evidence is lacking for both sides.

GadgetPlay

@Babysealclubber:
Candied yams are like heaven... oh wait... Candied yams are like you're rotting in your grave and there is nothing more to look forward to.

What I'm trying to say is it's a blissful experience... you should try them... I have a wonderful recipe :c)

Rabid Penguin

@Babysealclubber:"I do know that the big bang is the scientific communities best answer to what actually happened"

What happened before that?

"I think that GadgetPlay doesn't know what he is talking about, and is just demonstrating his ignorance of science and the english language."

All I have said is that neither side has any evidence, one way or the other as to the mere existence of a God, and you have said nothing that disputes that. Bye, all.

GadgetPlay

@Both of GadgetPlay's comments: I guess you're right, you never did argue against evolution. And I guess you aren't arguing against the big bang theory either. And I apologize for the personal attack, which was the reason I rephrased that part of my statement.

Also, we don't exactly know what happened before the big bang. There is the brane hypothesis, a la string theory, but this has yet to be tested adequately. That doesn't mean that it won't be tested, although at this point it is unclear just how that will be done. Also, you are assuming that time can be viewed linearly outside of this universe, this may not be the case.

I think that there is a larger issue here, which people have already discussed in this thread. Who has the burden of proof in this situation? It's only possible to prove a negative in a few, limited situations. One of these situations is when two things are logical contradictions, such as a square circle (unless you're a Zune of course ;)

The problem is that we cannot prove that there is, or isn't a God, yet christians, and well, all theists, maintain that there most certainly is. I said earlier that I am an atheist, and I am going to backpedal a bit and say that I am in fact an agnostic atheist in order to more clearly represent myself.

An agnostic doesn't know whether there is a god or not, and an atheist doesn't believe that there is a god. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

I believe that it is possible that there is a god, but only about as much as it is possible that there are space unicorns orbiting pluto. I don't believe that there are unicorns orbiting pluto, and I can present evidence that demonstrates it's extreme absurdity, but nevertheless, I can't *prove* that there aren't any.

If I am going to believe this hypothesis, I am going to demand that there be proof first. A lot of it.

I am an atheist because the notion of a divine being who created the universe, created primitive life on earth, guided evolution, made man in his own image, and then imposed an arbitrary moral structure (not talking about the ten commandments here,) and then decided to condemn his creations to either heaven or hell based on whether or not they believed that he existed and followed his rules, is extremely absurd to me.

Let me reiterate, I demand evidence, and believe that I am right for doing so.

@Rabid Penguin: I see what you did there, very clever. ;) I will have to try them sometime, if you feel like it, you should PM me with the recipe :)

Babysealclubber

@GadgetPlay: Thank you.

You're welcome. But, I should add, that I've not seen anything that disproves that the universe is a project for a science fair for an advanced alien species. (I'd give it a B.)

Nor do I find that explanation any more or less likely than any other, including solipsism.

TommySez

@TommySez: I think we agree (although I would probably give it an A-, but I grade on the curve).

@Babysealclubber:"Also, you are assuming that time can be viewed linearly outside of this universe, this may not be the case."

Actually, unless Einstein was badly mistaken, I would assume that time cannot be viewed linearly from outside the universe. Other than that, we're pretty much in sync. Thanks for a good discussion.

GadgetPlay

They are off making new Universes and to go fishing it requires I get a fishing license? When did this logic evolve?

Hello_Newman

@GadgetPlay: An A-? But the assignment specifically said "no singularities." Wrapping them up in black holes isn't good enough!

TommySez

@Babysealclubber:

"and then decided to condemn his creations to either heaven or hell based on whether or not they believed that he existed and followed his rules, is extremely absurd to me."

That's where most people hang up, and i dont blame you. But as someone who believes in God, I would posit that God doesn't give a shit what you believe - only what you do and why you do it. Looking at life as a learning experience wherein the collective actions of all serve as a wisdom engine, it must be admitted that evil people and their misdeeds and the consequences thereof are wholly as valuable of experiences as pious existences are.

nutbastard

"and an atheist doesn't believe that there is a god."

no, and atheist believes there isn't a God - only a nihilist doesn't believe [insert belief]

nutbastard

@Babysealclubber:

"Let me reiterate, I demand evidence, and believe that I am right for doing so."

Unfortunately for those of you who demand scientific, physical evidence to support the existence of something hitherto undetected, all evidence for Gods existence is purely introspective and subjective. I forget where this line comes from, but it goes like this:

"Do you feel love?"

"Yes"

"Prove it"

nutbastard

@nutbastard:
"and atheist"
"an atheist"

nutbastard

@nutbastard: Nutty B (your 90's hip-hop alias)...I didn't know you were a believer. Any particular faith? I'm also curious if you were schooled in religion while growing up.

johnnyabnormal