Why organised religion?

Originally posted by tomtom232
Shut the hell up man and get off my back. Nobody likes you.

What do you believe is wrong with what I stated? That black holes look like nothing? My use of the word spits? That black holes emit quasars?

What are you whatting?

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

Black holes do not 'spit out' or 'emit', quasars.

Black holes also don't really look like nothing, they don't emit light it is true, but they do
bend it, thus having a significant effect on their visual surroundings, even if they are not
chewing up matter swirling around it in an accretion disk.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When put in terms of giving, you are placing it on a pedestal: as though science is somehow bestowing on us some form of its generosity. The fact that it is a man-derived, man-dependent discipline automatically disqualifies it from the wholly objective truth category.

I really don't see your point, I think you might be misunderstanding my meaning, but I don't
understand your criticism to be sure....
maybe if you could elaborate on precisely what it is you disagree with?


As for your last statement.... I don't see what your problem is, nobody is claiming (and I
certainly am not) that science is perfect or always right, the scientific method is designed around
the fact that it isn't perfect (and neither are the people following it) and isn't always right.
So, what's your problem? (tone, quizzical not aggressive.)

Originally posted by RJHinds
God is something. 😀

If god existed forever and that is how you get around having a first cause then having
the universe exist forever is simpler.

If god has a beginning then you have to explain how god came into being which you
can't do so simply having the universe come into being for an unknown reason is simpler.

Either way, god is not needed and only makes things more complicated.

in my experience religion is hardly organized

Originally posted by sumydid
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]Science doesn't claim everything came form nothing

Excellent! Then we agree, science doesn't have a clue how it all began. And that's ok. Science should stick to what it's supposed to be doing, and that is observing facts and drawing conclusions from them.[/b]

No that isn't what I said, there is a difference between not knowing something, and not
having a clue about something.

While we don't 'know' how the universe came to be (assuming it hasn't existed forever in
one form or another) that doesn't mean we don't have a clue.

And science does do what it does best.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I like him.

This made me feel all warm and fuzzy :-)

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

Black holes do not 'spit out' or 'emit', quasars.

Black holes also don't really look like nothing, they don't emit light it is true, but they do
bend it, thus having a significant effect on their visual surroundings, even if they are not
chewing up matter swirling around it in an accretion disk.

Ok I was mixed up with my words. Astonomy isn't my main subject but they do emit or "spit out" gas jets.
They do "look like nothing."

I am invisible but I move things around me, am I still invisible even though you can detect that I am there? Yes, I am.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Nobody likes you.

How did you come to that conclusion?[/b]

Ok, so I overreacted because I am in a foul mood but how did you know that my name isn't Nobody and that I wasn't referencing myself in the third person? 😀

@googlefudge:

My apologies but for future reference can you at least state what you are arguing? It may be a misunderstanding or a mix up of terms.
I(nobody) do not like to be responded to with "what?" when the words are there for you to read as many times as you like.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Ok, so I overreacted because I am in a foul mood but how did you know that my name isn't Nobody and that I wasn't referencing myself in the third person? 😀

@googlefudge:

My apologies but for future reference can you at least state what you are arguing? It may be a misunderstanding or a mix up of terms.
I(nobody) do not like to be responded to with "what?" when the words are there for you to read as many times as you like.

True, but however many times I read them they still didn't make any sense.
It was also late and I was getting punchy but I should probably have put more.

At the time I thought you must have typed something without really paying attention and
you would simply read my post, look again and realised you had made a typo.

However, I did not intend to offend, and I promise to fully word my responses from now on.

Originally posted by googlefudge
True, but however many times I read them they still didn't make any sense.
It was also late and I was getting punchy but I should probably have put more.

At the time I thought you must have typed something without really paying attention and
you would simply read my post, look again and realised you had made a typo.

However, I did not intend to offend, and I promise to fully word my responses from now on.

It wasn't really offensive so much as annoying and it wouldn't have been a problem except for my foul mood. Basically, just add enough so that I know what you are whatting.

Ex: "umm,What? spit out a quasar?"

Make a joke if you can, too.... I like being the "butt of jokes." 😀

Originally posted by googlefudge
No that isn't what I said, there is a difference between not knowing something, and not
having a clue about something.

While we don't 'know' how the universe came to be (assuming it hasn't existed forever in
one form or another) that doesn't mean we don't have a clue.

And science does do what it does best.

We also have the Holy Bible to tell us how the universe came to be.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We also have the Holy Bible to tell us how the universe came to be.

Which has no veracity whatsoever.