Timewaster's Guide Archive

Quote from: mtlhddoc2 on April 29, 2009, 08:09:04 PM

I would not say that dark matter is a common belief, just a vocal one. I am highly skeptical on the who dark matter thing. I rather doubt it exists. More than likely, their "unexplained" gravity is just an object they cannot see, such as a black hole or something. Scientists love to fill holes with things like that. When there is no viewable explanation, they just make one up.

As far as other life proving or disproving God: I dont think it applies and would not do either. Finding other life would not change how I view it, and shouldnt make a difference how you view it either, since your religious tomes were intended for an audience on THIS planet only.

It's becoming quite evident that you disbelieve a great many things, Mtlhddoc2.  Have you read Nietzsche?  I think you would really appreciate him.

non-belief is not the same as disbelief. I believe in things that can be proven, not things that cannot. If you prove to me that this invisible matter that emits no radiation that we can detect, nor does it impede travel of planetary bodies. So it has no mass, apparently either. Prove it, and I will believe it. Same goes with the invisible man in the sky. Prove it and I wil believe it.

Kaz: "dark matter" is still considered a hypothesis, not a "fact"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Part of my heritage involves people who migrated to and built a new world on a new continent some 10-15 thousand years ago.  They've been the target of genocide, cultural warfare and a religious teachings intended to dehumanized us.   No biggy, but I've been all over my body looking for my mark and haven't found one yet.

Um, if you're referring to some kind of LDS religious teaching, I'm afraid you're quite mistaken about what the church teaches. But if you're not talking about anything LDS, then never mind.

i dont think the Mormons came to North America, or anywhere, 15 thousand years ago. I do believe Mormonism is only about a 200 year old religion. He is saying that he has Native American ancestors. No culture in teh history of the world has faced the brutality and genocide that the American Indian has faced. And before your say it, no, not even the Jewish peoples. Not like that, but they would be second.

I would not say that dark matter is a common belief, just a vocal one. I am highly skeptical on the who dark matter thing. I rather doubt it exists. More than likely, their "unexplained" gravity is just an object they cannot see, such as a black hole or something. Scientists love to fill holes with things like that. When there is no viewable explanation, they just make one up.

As far as other life proving or disproving God: I dont think it applies and would not do either. Finding other life would not change how I view it, and shouldnt make a difference how you view it either, since your religious tomes were intended for an audience on THIS planet only.

Ren: it is no different from a lottery standpoint. with your argument. The more tickets that are bought, the less likely it is that someone will win. I disagree. The more tickets that are bought, the more likely it is that not just one person will win, but several. But really, the existence of life, and then sentient life, is like hitting the lottery which then wins you another lottyery ticket, and that wins you another ticket, which wins you another ticket, which then wins you the prize. I agree it is unlikely that there is sentient life. But life in general (ameoba like), not unlikely. It is certainly possible, and becomes probable in the event of infinity, the more combinations you have, the more likely a specific combination will come to the fore. It is just chemistry, really.

epist: murder rape etc are illegal, yes because they are immoral, but also because the do the opposite of what this country was founded on: Freedom. We have freedom in all things, or we should, with one glaring exception: when it affects someone else. the old saying "your right to free speech stops at my nose" or soemthing to that effect. Restricting immoral behavior between two consenting adults is restrictions on freedom, regardles of how you view it. Many straight couples engage in immoral behavior in their bedrooms, consentually. And most of the laws restricting these things have been eradicated.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex, or sexual orientation or moral/immoral behavior. What it is is legally and/or religious joining with another person to become one entity, whatever the purpose may be, it could be sex, or finances, healthcare, conveinience, joining of families, or eradications of lonelieness. People get married for many different reasons and we do not judge them for it, since they can do whatever they want....... Unless they are gay of course.

"Encouraging people not to work by paying them does NOT curb unemployment.  If anything, it's likely to increase it."

Well, duh, of course it does, but that is not the point. That is the reason legislation was enacted, I did not say it was GOOD legislation. No more than welfare "helps people get on their feet" actually does. But that is a seperate discussion. Seems we have similar politicl views, at least economically.

"if you were in a sypathetic court" - which means that they only have rights in a sympathetic court.

and this: "Social security and all of that is designed to enable single-income families to still be able to raise children and be okay.  As I've pointed out before, the entire purpose behind this is pointless with homosexual families, which have no reason to not have two incomes."

This is untrue. Social Security is designed to get people out of the workforce to curb unemployment. When it was envisioned, we had unemployment of nearly 30% and older workers dying, literally, in the streets. If the whole point of things is "for the children" then immediately following the childrens rise to adulthood, the marriage should be null and void. Ditto to those who are barren or sterile and to those who decide not to have children. Marriage has nothing to do with children in this day and age. It may have, back in the 1800s, but not now, and not since the 50s or 60. And lets not forget the fact that, although they may be gay, they can sTILL have children. Many of the gay couples I know do have children, either through adoption or fertilization procedures, or from previous hetero relationship. Using "children" as an excuse to discriminate against a segment of a population is abhorrent.