Okay, I'll bite. Here is an atheist AMA question. Go?

Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One I don’t think religion has anything to do with the safety of a society. I think that a safety of a society is based upon the economic stability of the particular society, be it religious or not.

But you didn’t really answer the question.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One Sure I did. You set up a dichotomous question with the premise that one or the other was more safe, and I’m pointing out that it’s “neither”, it makes no difference. It’s like me asking you, “Did you beat your wife this week or last week?” You didn’t beat your wife, so the question is flawed.

Your question would have been slightly better phrased, “Do you think that Christian societies would be safer than atheist societies? (or vice versa)” In which case, I’d say, “No.”

Should Christians be treated differently in the work place?
Should they be allowed on company time to do prayers or other practices that their religion dictates?

@SQUEEKY2 Great question.
Question 1: No
Question 2: No problem as long as it’s on an approved break and doesn’t interfere with their job.

Amendment: It doesn’t even need to be on an approved break if it’s just a stop for a quick prayer or something. I don’t care.

[Mod says]: Moved to Social.

@longgone Thanks.

Over what time period?

My thinking is that a religiously-based society would evolve to force people to adhere to that religion. Not immediately and not quickly, but that would eventually be the case. It’s not hard to find examples:
– Turkey over the last several years
– Iran since 1979
– Egypt before the latest revolution
– Israel (to a degree, particularly Jerusalem)
– Saudi Arabia

Whereas secular (not really atheist) societies (Scandanavia, most of Western Europe, the US, even Russia somewhat) tend to be more open minded.

@elbanditoroso Is this a question for me? If so, I don’t quite understand it.

How often do you eat babies?

Turkey is not forcing people to adopt Islam. In Indonesia, Muslims and Christians and Buddists have been living together as a culture with no religious wars. The upheaval they’ve had there was all about the money and political power. Their current president is like a breath of fresh air. It isn’t about what the religion the majority practices, it is about tolerance and secularism.

@ragingloli Mmmmm. Babies. The other other white meat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwNpaONjSaY

Here is Captain America saying that Babies taste best

You’re welcome.

I have a question for you:
@Dutchess_III has said you are the reason she is an atheist now. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m curious about this. Maybe both of you could elaborate…what made you, Dutch, change your mind? Which topics did you discuss?

I think a “Christian” government would be far more inherently dangerous than an atheist government.

There is nothing inherently “good” or about Christians, just as there is nothing inherently “evil” about atheist.
We have had Christian governments in the past, and, without exception, they were miserable failures. In fact, Goode Olde England, with their Catholic government, was the reason that
A) Protestants risked their lives to get some place else because of the persecution and
B) The founding fathers made damn sure no one religion, or religious faction ruled.

Oh Gosh @longgone. We discussed everything over a period of 3 years. It wasn’t an instant thing.
Something that sticks in my mind was a question asked about having the 10 Commandments in government buildings, such as the court house.
I said, “Of course we should have them! They’re good rules!”
Rarebear said, “What if you were known Christian, in a Muslim-run country, ready to go on trial for you life, and they had Shari laws posted in the courthouse. How secure would you feel about getting a fair trial?”

I can’t say that that was the turning point, but I sure never forgot it, and thought about it a long time.

Or…maybe that’s the point when I realized no one religion is right. They just think they are.

And that recently came up in Oklahoma, with the 10 Commandments. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

@cazzie – how do you argue that Turkey is not becoming Islamic? Erdogan has explicitly disavowed Ataturk’s secularism and promoted and passed laws Islamizing Turkey.

@Dutchess_III Thanks, interesting. I was imagining you two to have been strangers. Of course, after three years, you were not.

@longgone We have been online friends on various forums since wis.dm many years ago.

2007 or thereabouts. Wow. You’re old @osoraro!

I think the biggest thing for him was that I never fought the science. I never accepted a virgin birth, I never accepted that Jesus was literally dead for 3 days, I never accepted all those things that would touted as Holy Miracles.
Instead I looked for rational explanation, and concluded that the actual origins of what they called “miracles,” were deliberately lost in the telling, to make it more spiritual, not to mention interesting.

I’ve said it before…The Great Flood? It was probably a huge, but local flood and some farmer managed to save some of his livestock, and the tales got bigger on down the line.

Also, Nova had an interesting episode once, about the Bering Land Bridge. When it was exposed it was just land, and people farmed it, raised generations on it, built their own local history on it.
When the glaciers started melting, causing sea levels to rise, the Bering Landbridge re-flooded. I don’t know how long it took. I’m guessing generations. And stories start flowing about “pre-history” when that area was land, not sea.

Two good points. We’re much less likely to get defensive when there’s a sturdy connection – and it sounds like you two speak the same language on this, with being accepting of science.

Thanks for satisfying my curiousity!

Thank you for asking this.

1.) When did you realize that you were an atheist and how did you come to that conclusion?
2.) How much do you know about all religions? The reason for asking is that I consider myself an agnostic-atheist for a variety of reasons. One is that I know very little or nothing about most religions. Maybe one of them is right.
3.) Along that topic, if someone claims to be an Atheist purely based upon their knowledge of one religion, say Christianity, is that credible?

@Pied_Pfeffer Okay, My pathway to atheism is very very long, but I’ll try to cut it short as short as possible:

1. Despite the fact that both my grandfather and father were atheists (my mom never expressed a preference although she did convert), I believed in God all my young life, certainly through my Bar Mitzvah. In high school, I began studying and taking classes with a renowned Theosophist who studied under some of the major Theosophical thinkers of the early 20th century. When I took seminars from him, I began to realize that there were different ways of looking at the world, and as a result I started reading about other religions. In summer school I took a comparative religion class in a local community college (some high school kids fuck off in the summer, I went to school—that’s how I roll), and read texts from many different religions.

When I went to college, I began to realize that none of them were “right” and I became more of a benign deist than anything else. I was (and still am) Jewish, but my belief in God somewhat fizzled into more of something like The Force in Star Wars. This was my New Age period.

That got crushed as I became more wrapped up in to day to day stuff of surviving as an undergrad, and later a medical student and resident. But I still believed in some sort of spirit force, Gaia, or whatever.

Then about 15 years ago, I really took quite a sudden and sharp turn into empiricism, and it was about the same time I discovered the Skeptical movement (which I have since distanced myself from for completely different reasons). The Skeptical movement was all about evidence, science, and even more importantly Bayesian statistical theory, and when I started reading and studying more about this, it clicked home. This was me. And it was inevitable that atheism would follow. It was like the final puzzle piece clicked into place and I was whole.

2. I know quite a bit about many of the more common religions. I obviously know a lot about Judaism and the various sects of Christianity. Less so about Islam. I know about Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, Sufism, Buddhism, and Baha’i as I’ve either studied or been exposed to them. There are others too.

3. You don’t need to have a knowledge of religion to reject the notion of God. Your question implies that if you know just one religion, and you reject it, how can you know another religion is not correct? The answer is that it doesn’t matter. I am an atheist not because I’ve been exposed to a crap ton of different religions. I am an atheist because the notion of God makes no sense in an empiric scientific Bayesian sense.

Bayesian

From my understand of the Jewish religion and culture, through the centuries they debated points of scripture like a bunch of lawyers. I always compared that to the Christian insistence that “You must believe and you must not question.”
That’s really what kind of did it for me, before I ever met @osoraro. When ever a Christian got stuck on one of my questions the Final Answer was “Because God. (magic)” That just didn’t work for me.

@osoraro just, somehow, gave me the courage to just stand up and face the reality.

Thanks. I don’t mean to get derailed on the topic of Bayesian probability, but it is how I look at life. The absolute best description I’ve ever seen is of it is this xkcd cartoon.

https://xkcd.com/1132/

LOL! I’ll bet you fiddy bucks it hasn’t!

Not to many questions yet, really.

If it is all about facts and evidence, which is more important, to have facts that look like something but is plausible not to be, or evidence that can be indeed proven?

You start with things that seem like something is plausible, then you gather evidence and facts to prove it. Or disprove it. << That is major, right there.

Why do so many other cultures have a great flood story, and doesn’t that prove that The Great Flood of the Bible really happen?

With regards to your last answer..I’d definitely feel safer in a Christian neighborhood.

What would it take for you to believe in God?

Why would you feel safer in a “Christian” neighborhood?
Why would you feel less safe in an atheist neighborhood?

Safety? Safety from what or whom, the devil, or superstition? The question is meaningless.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One Oh maybe letting someone find a cure for cancer, maybe toning down the greed of the wealthy so others might not have to eat dirt.

@Hypocrisy_Central I do not understand your question. Can you please rephrase?

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One To make me believe in God I would need verifiable measurable objective evidence, ideally going through a Bayesian prior probability factor.

In terms of you feeling safer in a Christian neighborhood, fair enough. People tend to flock to other people who are like them. I personally would feel very uncomfortable in a homogeneous Christian neighborhood, although not necessarily “unsafe”.

A neighborhood is a society that is run by someone?

Are you capable of believing in anything? (God or otherwise)

Aren’t you “believing” in some scientific theories (since you probably didn’t personally conduct the experiments or collect the data supporting them)?

@osoraro I do not understand your question. Can you please rephrase?
Let’s go with this, you come upon a fresh trench, it is rather deep, there is burnt grass surrounding the trench along with parts one can identify as aircraft parts, what would you say happened by the evidence you found?

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One Capable? Yes. But I try to have a mental discipline not to believe in anything.

No, I’m not “believing” in scientific theories. I am accepting the available evidence. If the evidence changes, then my point of view also changes.

@Hypocrisy_Central Given the available evidence, I would come to a conclusion that it is probable an airplane crashed into the trench.

“No, I’m not “believing” in scientific theories. I am accepting the available evidence. If the evidence changes, then my point of view also changes.”
The problem I have with that is you’re accepting evidence you didn’t collect. In other words, you’re trusting someone else to be right. That trust has to be a belief at some point.

What am I driving at? You are violating your self proclaimed requirement / prerequisite for in-the-hand evidence.

@osoraro and @Dutchess_III regards to your Bayesian probability, you’d both need to know when and if you had a positive answer and then you’d have to talk to an Empiricist, and I’d tell you that after 8 and a half minutes, you would have a definitive answer about your sun.

@osoraro Given the available evidence, I would come to a conclusion that it is probable an airplane crashed into the trench.
You would not think of any other possible reason for those things to have gotten there in the way they were found?

Q: Do you get along with agnostics and will you bake me cookies?

A: Yes, and yes. They’re done, and they look just like you.. I’m waiting.

Excellent. I will be right over.

^ Sorry. We ate them.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One You keep coming back to this “You keep accepting evidence you did not collect,” and “Were you there?!.”

♫ You accept the idea that Jesus died on the cross,even though you weren’t there to see it.
♫ You accept the idea that Jesus rose from the dead, though you weren’t there to see it.
♫ You accept the idea that Jesus walked on water though you weren’t there to see it.
♫ You accept the idea that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant. Were you there to see it happen?

Not only were you not there to “see” any of these things for yourself, there is not one shred of physical, or biological, or historical evidence (outside of the Bible) to support these notions. Yet not only do you believe, you will fight to the death to defend it all.

If you see a burned trench with airplane parts scattered about, the logical assumption is that it was a plane crash.
However, you also accept that you could be wrong, and if it’s important enough, from there you start investigating.

What have your personal investigations into Jesus turned up so far?

Wondering when the last time the Bible was ever peer reviewed for data collection accuracy and factual and method accuracy, um… Nope, never. but that is how science works, @Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One . And scientists change their ideas in the face of new data. (not perfectly… and we, too wait for the old fuddy duddies to die so that science can advance)

Religion doesn’t rely on facts. It relies on faith and one can not argue that they are the same. They are not.

I realize this is a somewhat new type of question here but I’m asking @osoraro questions and interested in his answers..not the entire collective. This is his ama.

He’s answering them, @Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One, “trust” and “belief” are not the same.

I trust that the scientific method works. I trust that the engineers did their job and correctly designed the apartment building where I live. Of course these are human enterprises and subject to failure. For the most part, they get it right. When they don’t, the system learns from failure and improves.

Belief does not have to change, even in the face of facts. Just look at how many bad relationships exist from belief alone.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mean when I write “evidence.” To you, “evidence” equals “experience”. What you experience with your own senses is what is true. A persons experience is flawed, and their recall is imperfect, and their senses can be fooled. That’s why people go to magic shows.

What I mean by “evidence” is very different. Data is gathered, independently, and ideally by machines. Data is also gathered in multiple different places and times by multiple different machines or people. It is analyzed statistically to see if the result of the data is not random noise, and then (ideally, but not always) put through a Bayesian prior probability filter. This is evidence.

And still, this is not proof. The above rigors must be applied repeatedly. The more it is applied and passed, the more “proof” it is. If a test fails, then you relook at the experiment and examine the methodology. And then you do it again.

@hc I would make a hypothesis that a plane crashed. I would call 911 and begin a search and rescue. I would look for news reports of a missing plane. Whatever. What is the point of this line of inquiry?

I think he’s trying to say “If you didn’t see it happen, then you can’t know what happened.” It’s a common argument among today’s Christians, albeit a strange one, considering the things they claimed to have happened, that they did see happen either.

@osoraro
It all sounds very nice but you still aren’t the one controlling the machines or putting things “through the prior”. You’re at a magic show. The difficult bit is that 90% of what you’re seeing is not magic..and
you’re accepting the rest blindly.

However, I can see we’ll disagree on this one so..moving on.

Were you the one patrolling and controlling Jesus’ burial place after the crucifixion, @Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One? Yet you accept the impossible ascertain completely and blindly.

Okay I’ll try one more time to answer your question and then yes, we can move on.

Let’s say you are training for your backpacking trip that all of a sudden you get crushing chest pain radiating down the left arm. You call 911 and are brought into the emergency room and I see you. I get an ekg and diagnose and acute myocardial infarction.

Now my question to you is do you want me to withhold the aspirin, heparin, and cardiac catheterization with stent placement because I personally didn’t perform the studies to show that those interventions are associated with improved mortality?

You see my point? Does that answer your question?

@osoraro – hasn’t the denial of accumulated medical knowledge been one of the major religious tenets of Christian Science?

AKA anti-vaxxers, @elbanditoroso. But I’m interested in the answer here….

I haven’t had many Christian scientist patients. Maybe because they don’t like doctors.

@osoraro
Don’t you see though? You’re not the doc when it comes to geology…or biochemistry…or Agronomy…you’re the patient. You are trusting that your doctor isn’t a quack or a Kavorkian.
Is it unfounded trust? Of course not..not always.

Anyway..next question.

We talked a bit in the other ama about it but: Do you believe that matter always existed?

No. Current evidence suggests that matter started at the Big Bang.

Wait, @Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One! You keep going back to the “but did you do the testing?” as if that somehow negates the argument if he wasn’t the one who did the actual testing.
In his hypothetical example above, he wasn’t the one who did all the tests on you. Someone else did, people who are educated in such things, and not osoraro, and based on their findings he would choose a certain course of action for you.

Do you think his suggested course of action would be the wrong response, based on the test that someone else did, and interpreted?

Ok, so where did the matter that became the big bang come from?

Well the matter issue was at least partially solved recently at CERN. Matter was created through elementary particles interacting with the Higgs Field.

Higgs Field (If any of you wonder why I do that, it’s because I go look it up to study it, then repost the link here so youse can too. It doesn’t mean I know what it is. Same with the Bayesian link I posted here. I didn’t know what it was so I looked it up.)

Oh boy..

Where did the elementary particles come from?

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One when you have read Brian Greene and the latest writings of Roger Penrose…. get back to me. also, it might help to brush up on your quantum physics.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One I’m not sure what you mean, by “where did [they] come from?” I’ve already said that the current cosmological theory is that the universe started with the Big Bang, so everything came from that, although there are other less accepted models such as the Ekpyrotic Universe model which is based upon M-theory.

The big bang theory does not cover the origins of life. In the science-only community,at some point, something came from absolutely nothing.

Isn’t that right?

Quantum physics cannot occur without “stuff”. Where did the “stuff” come from?

I’m amazed (and a little appalled) by the lack of acceptance on this one small idea.

Big Bang Theory has nothing to with the origin of life. That’s abiogenesis—a process that is not fully understood yet

No, something did not come from nothing. (follow the double negatives). It came from an initial singularity, a process that is also not fully understood yet, although CERN is getting closer to understanding.

Quantum singularity.

Yes, science is mind bending. It’s hard. Religion is easy.

CERN. “The European Organization for Nuclear Research”

@Dutchess_III can we admit that is my line? Science is hard, religion is easy….. or perhaps a soft pillow to rest your tired head upon… Do not offer 8th graders the simply answers of creationism and young earth on my watch….. I will blow….. you… away. Not that you would, ,@Dutchess_III….

@Dutchess_III Well, the link you linked to is science fiction. This is a better one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch

….Why is it science fiction? But yours is a better one.

So many links to research, @Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One, in @osoraro‘s post about Planck. It makes me excited.

Ok so fail#2.

Next:
Would you call me crazy if I said a rocketship or a submarine built itself naturally over a billion years?

but he has no idea who Brian Greene is or what I’m talking about….

Brian Greene. Do I get paid vacations with this job, y’all?

Sorry… Science is hard.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One Yes.

@osoraro it’s a trap.

@cazzie Oh, I know. I’m ready. I’ve ridden this rodeo before.

*Well, it is an old boring trap…. but beat that horse for all it’s worth if that is what makes the both of you happy.

@cazzie I’m curious to see how he phrases his next question.

Because obviously submarines have children. Or do they undergo mitosis?

It is called biology and gee….. that seems to be science too! How difficult for the theologians. Actually, I take that back…. they make it easy…. because they can always answer… ‘God is Magic!’ and that is the end of it….. gees…. if I was in 8th grade, I’d love to know that that is the end of the discussion and that I didnt’ have to learn anything else… what a relief.

Sorry… hurting the creationist party….

@Dutchess_III I’m a fan of Brian Greene. His book The Elegant Universe is quite good—at least the first half. He’s a string theorist and the second half is all about string theory, but his explanation of Special and General Relativity, and basic quantum mechanics is one of the clearest I’ve read.

Another terrific book is Timothy Ferris, The Whole Shebang. It’s a little dated now, but it’s still great.

Do you live by any sort of moral code? What is it based on? How do you choose what is morally acceptable and what is not?

@everyone else
I’m really glad you’re here to help lurve on fellow atheists.. but I’m asking @osoraro questions..not you. So please forgive me if I ignore your exasperated responses and occasional you-dont-know-anything taunts.

I do my best to converse as if we were in a friendly neighborhood diner. Unfortunately, people keep sliding into the booth mid-conversation.

Sure. My moral code is based upon Bill and Ted. Also I never lie.

I see.

@longone: Drat.

@ragingloli I just saw your “Captain America” link. Is Snowpiercer good? It’s on my list but I keep passing it by for something else.

Well, it kind of looks like this wound down a bit @Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One.

May I ask you what kind of moral code did people live by before the Bible, do you think?

What kind of moral code did Native Americans live by for thousands and thousands of years before they were introduced to Christianity?

HC seems to have this idea that without belief in God, we will degenerate into selfish, immoral, self serving, narcissistic assholes who will climb over other people without remorse, in order to get what we want. Is that what you think?

Here is something to think about. Donald Trump, the most selfish, uncaring, narcissistic person in the world claims to be a Christian.

@osoraro
I think it is. I liked it a lot.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One Sorry about the peanut gallery. Go ahead and keep asking if that’s what you want to do. You didn’t spring your trap yet. :-)

@osoraro Whatever. What is the point of this line of inquiry?
Believe me, it has more relevance then questions directed about floods and virgin births etc. You said based off what you discovered you would believe a certain event happened and you would respond in a manner that the event you believed you witnessed calls for, calling 911, looking for survivors, etc. Let’s say you did that, cobble together people who thought the same as you who was ready to go scour the country side to find any injured people or the remains. Then someone walks up and asks what is going on. When they hear the story He tells you that he dug the trench to dump the useless mangled aircraft parts in, but it was too dark so he tried to set the brush ablaze in a controlled manner to see, but it did not work so he left to go get a generator and lights but got sidetracked and did not make it back until just now. Because of what you thought which did not really happen a lot of effort, time, and maybe money was expended for nothing. In science which goes off evidence, a lot of the evidence that is seen looks like what the viewer expected to see as following a certain action, since they were not around when the event actually happened, something could have arranged the evidence that the scientist have no clue of and nothing to do with how it got to where they observed it. If you do not think there could be any plausible reason, you can go off chasing your own folly but believing it is so vehemently. Anything science cannot test firsthand can always be inaccurate, but in a lot of cases (from what I seen) it is trying to be passed as a surety.

No. Current evidence suggests that matter started at the Big Bang.
What was before the Big Bang, and what makes them 100% sure they are right?

@Dutchess_III I think he’s trying to say “If you didn’t see it happen, then you can’t know what happened.” It’s a common argument among today’s Christians, albeit a strange one, considering the things they claimed to have happened, that they did see happen either.
That is the difference between science and faith, with faith I don’t need the smoking gun, with science it seems to say we need evidence or proof, so, show me the money. Somethings of science I take off faith because if I believe it happened this way or that, is not going to affect my eternity either way. Science seem to say that about the Bible, but then, I do not need evidence that is tangible, if so, that is not really faith.

@Hypocrisy_Central
Paragraph 1: Not seeing a question there.

Paragraph 2: Nobody claims to be 100% sure. If we were 100% sure we wouldn’t have scientists to continue research

Oh, you asked what happened before the Big Bang. Nobody knows. Here is an Astronomy Cast episode where they talk about it.

http://www.astronomycast.com/2006/10/the-big-bang-and-cosmic-microwave-background/

Being of science and seemingly pragmatic, as an atheist do you believe the fluke that placed man here was the only fluke in millions of millennia, or do you believe by the law of averages it had to have happened on some other planet in the see of Octodecillion billion stars?

@Hypocrisy_Central Let me clear up some misstatements in your questions.

1) “As an atheist…” Being an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with being “of science. They are not mutually exclusive. My favorite astronomer is a devout Christian, and an evolutionary biologist who argued in the Fitzmiller case is also a Christian. I have many more Christian friends than atheist friends and they are all “of science”. Of course, I have Jewish friends too, but Jews have never had a problem with science.

2) I do not “believe” anything. We established that already

3) Genus Homo was not “placed” here—like every other living thing they evolved. As such, I would consider it highly unlikely that human beings as we know it exist on other planets. If there is intelligent life, it would have evolved to fit that particular evolutionary niche. In terms of whether statistically this is likely? I do not know the variables well enough to say, but if I were to give an educated guess I’d say that somewhere out there, at some time, there probably is or was another species of intelligent life. But until that is shown, I know of them only for a fact in the science fiction books I read.

^ I do not know the variables well enough to say, but if I were to give an educated guess I’d say that somewhere out there, at some time, there probably is or was another species of intelligent life. But until that is shown, I know of them only for a fact in the science fiction books I read.
You are saying you cannot fathom that the ”fluke of life” here could not have happened anywhere else? Ignoring the odds and logic that is what you are saying? That would be like a person winning the lotto and then it rolls over indefinitely with there never being another winner, how probable do you think that is? Of course, life has already shown that not to be.

If you can’t sign on to extraterrestrials because you have not captured on in a bottle, do you believe the Crab Nebula is 6500 ly away, seeing no one was alive when it 1st started putting out light, and no one can live long enough for light or anything else to go there and bounce back? If you say it is because of the Heliometer, it still has to read what it cannot empirically measure do you have assured faith it is exactly that far away, taking no undetectable barriers, or whatever between here and there?

@Hypocrisy_Central
“You are saying you cannot fathom that the ”fluke of life” here could not have happened anywhere else? Ignoring the odds and logic that is what you are saying? ”

No, that’s not what I said. Read it again, carefully this time.

“That would be like a person winning the lotto and then it rolls over indefinitely with there never being another winner, how probable do you think that is?”

I already told you I do not know the variables, so I can not give any real answers on this. But to copy and paste what I wrote: ”...but if I were to give an educated guess I’d say that somewhere out there, at some time, there probably is or was another species of intelligent life.”

I’m not sure I understand what you are asking in your second paragraph though. Do I believe the Crab Nebula is 6500 ly away? Probably, more or less, but the distance is uncertain because of variability in measurement. Light does not go out and bounce back. We can measure the angular diameter, but we can not with great precision measure how far away it is. That’s why it’s 6500 +/- 1500 ly away. Why? Where do you think God put it?

On a side note, the star that is now the Crab Nebula exploded in 1054. THAT would have been a sight to behold. I’d give my left nut to see a supernova like that. I’ve photographed a supernova before, but it was in another galaxy. Also, there are time lapse videos out there that show the expansion of the Crab Nebula that are amazingly cool. I love astronomy.

^ Light does not go out and bounce back.
Maybe not the best choice of words, but nothing is visible unless some light bounces off (reflects) off of it. In any case, the light we see left there a long time ago. What was observed in 1054 happened way before anyone who observed it here was alive.

Where do you think God put it?
It is irrelevant to me. It will do what it does if I ever knew it was out there are not. It and everything in the heavens were put there for man’s enjoyment, so it is like visual ice cream, if you really get ice cream for the joy of it, you care not how many calories it is.

Do you believe a place can be haunted and what do you believe those people who do not believe in God say when they say they seen ghost and such?

Changed my avatar to the supernova

@Hypocrisy_Central No. Not correct. Light doesn’t bounce off the sun. Light is part of the nuclear chemistry of fusion reactions. You only care what the Crab Nebula looks like but have no interest in its chemistry, how it was formed, how fast it’s expanding, or what it will look like 1000 years from now or what it looked like 1000 years ago? You have no curiosity at all? That’s kind of sad, actually. I’m sorry about that.

Do I believe a place can be haunted or do I believe in ghosts? For the third time, I do not “believe” in anything. There is no evidence for anything haunted, nor is there evidence for ghosts. Just because someone says they see a ghost does not mean the ghost exists.

You only care what the Crab Nebula looks like but have no interest in its chemistry, how it was formed, how fast it’s expanding, or what it will look like 1000 years from now or what it looked like 1000 years ago? You have no curiosity at all?
The thought of those things glance my mind sometimes but it is like what did a T-Rex really look like or sound like, it would be speculation at best. I know what I see, as in the photos from telescopes. I did not see it with my naked eye, but enough other people had seen the same thing that I can place faith that it is up there, and that is what it looks like. 1,000 years from now the way things are degrading I am expecting this all to be toast and I will be in Glory forever. What it looks like 1,000 years from now I may get to see from a different perspective, but as from here, doesn’t much matter. Same as what it is made of, it would be taking faith what it is said to be is, because no one will be able to send a probe in there, harvest some vapors, dust or whatever, to put it under a microscope, so…… Astronomy is great, but a lot of that one never will be able to prove beyond all shadow of doubt.

What would you say of those believing in ESP?

Just because someone says they see a ghost does not mean the ghost exists.
For people who do not believe in an afterlife, but say they seen ghost, etc. do you think they were on one, delusional, suffering a mental illness, etc.?

I have yet to hear one person who does not believe in an afterlife claim to have seen a ghost.
Do you have an example, @Hypocrisy_Central?

^ Even if I soured the Internet and had a handful of substantiations, you would not believe it.

ESP—> No evidence. In fact someone who can prove it can win a million dollars

Delusional or mental illness? Maybe a few, but most are probably experiencing pareidolia.

Do you believe the core of Saturn to be iron–nickel and rock? If so, how sure are you and why?

@Hypocrisy_Central this is getting tiring. I don’t “believe” in anything. Quit phrasing your question like that. What are you doing, going to Wikipedia and finding obscure astronomy stuff?

The answer to the question is probably yes, since it has a magnetic field, and since it captured so much material. http://www.universetoday.com/15303/does-saturn-have-a-solid-core/

^ [..this is getting tiring. I don’t “believe” in anything.
YOU ARE TIRED? I am not even peppering you with questions as you were @Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One, I am giving you a chance to answer before you get another question. You spoke more than once of science, facts, etc. I am trying to determine if you believe all the scientific facts presented to you, or not, and why. I could ask you if you like Ford of Chevy but that is irrelevant to being an atheist unless you thought one was from God and therefor would not drive it. This questions are more relevant than you and the other non-believers posed ad nauseam. If you want to give up, just say the word, I figured there would be too much you would not have any answer to.

@Hypocrisy_Central you show NO interest in learning how scientific discoveries are made. We don’t have ‘faith’ that the LHC is busting apart particles, we KNOW it is. Also, spectral analysis has been around for quite a long time now and we can determine what gasses make up a star or what the atmosphere of a distant planet is made up of. You seem to want to remain willfully ignorant and simply post nonsense about what sort of car god would make and why an atheist wouldn’t drive it.

We tire of you because you make no sense and you drag every discussion down into some sort of mire of ‘your facts don’t mean anything because I have faith’... but that is quite not the point. We know Christians who are also scientists. They don’t ignore facts and advancements in knowledge. Do you think they should? Do you think everyone should just stop doing research and exploration and simply put their head in a bible and believe it completely? Are you the better Christian because you don’t question the Universe?

1000 GA’s @cazzie

To underscore @osoraro annoyance with the word “believe,” consider this: “Do you believe you have two arms and two legs?” Does that sound stupid? Of course it does
“Believe: verb 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.”

Super great answer @cazzie I truly wish I could give you a 1000 points as well.

(thanks @SQUEEKY2 and @Dutchess_III . I was afraid I sounded harsh. I wrote it before my morning coffee.)

You should post before your morning coffee more often! Except….no on my questions. ;)

First off, take a cold drink of water, you seem to be getting hot under the collar. Look at all the pats on the back you are getting, that has to help your lurve bottom line. ~~~

Also, spectral analysis has been around for quite a long time now and we can determine what gasses make up a star or what the atmosphere of a distant planet is made up of.
The Spirit has been around for far longer with the ability to determine the state of men’s soul, and the wickedness of one’s heart, that is what we know.

You seem to want to remain willfully ignorant and simply post nonsense about what sort of car god would make and why an atheist wouldn’t drive it.
You (as others) want to remain willfully foolish and simply soapbox about spiritual things you have no idea how they work. I would rather be totally scientifically ignorant than halfway spiritually foolish. Not knowing science will not keep me from eternity, foolishness will.

We tire of you because you make no sense and you drag every discussion down into some sort of mire ..]
I hardly bring up matters of faith because I know whose house I am in, you look around to those patting themselves on the back when they make some stupid, insipid, insulting comment about the Bible or God because they know people will pack the point on, they are the ones injecting faith into the conversation because they seem to think it is a cash cow. If someone introduces it, I will comment on it to hopefully straighten out the lies they are slinging.

Do you think everyone should just stop doing research and exploration and simply put their head in a bible and believe it completely?
I think they should put their head in the Bible and have that guide their research, since you asked.

Are you the better Christian because you don’t question the Universe?
No, to be a better Christian I have to be as close to the mirror image of Christ as I can possibly be. Earthly knowledge has nothing to do with it.

@Dutchess_III @SQUEEKY2 Open up 500 dummy accounts each and give her one….ooo oooo….better yet, get 500 friends each to come join Fluther and have them each give her one, you want to pad out the population anyhow, right? ~~~ snicker snicker

@Hypocrisy_Central, we tried letting the Bible guide research in the past. It kept us in an Earth-centric view of the universe that is utterly wrong.

Plus why pick that book as a guide? There are others…the Koran or the Avestan are two of many possibilities.

Good question. Why that particular book?

^ Good question. Why that particular book?
If you were to study something would you not want to have the book written by the one who created? Those other books authors or the person to which they are suppose to be about, made nothing. I am sure if one looked hard enough, they know where they are buried.

Question for @osoraro, do you think (since you don’t believe in anything) evil exist and where did it come from if it does?

He’s gone. I think the willful ignorance was just too much for him! I know how he feels.

No, “evil” does not exist. People can act in ways that fit our socially determined definition of “evil,” but “evil” as an actual, separate entity doesn’t exist, and can’t control us any more than angels and ghosts and demons do. Or control us any more than God does, for that matter.

You can’t argue about science, or even rationally, with a creationist. They simply don’t want to know. We happen to believe there are certain scientific facts and he has faith that his god did everything. Can’t argue with that. No point. He also has the ability to wave the wand of ‘You are all hopelessly doomed to hell because you are children with chainsaws’. Frankly, I don’t think it is me who is doing the work of a chainsaw. I’m more of a telescope and microscope kind of girl.

Ich. I’ll be using a chainsaw pretty soon. But not for evil

Why are we blindly supposed to follow faith without questioning it?
WE question science all the time and they have to prove with facts and evidence that it is correct.
If I tell you a certain car is the absolute best, you question it all most instantly , with things like, uh no this other car is better in so many categories ,and proven by this or that source.
I am skeptical of anything that says just follow and do not question,and that goes for ,people,religion, and Governments.
If I am not allowed to question it then I will follow a path that does allow me to question it.

“children with chainsaws”
Should be a band name.

“We happen to believe there are certain scientific facts and he has faith that his god did everything”
Exactly. These discussions are a complete non-starter because of this.

It can be compared too, to someone accusing you of doing something. Instead of getting the facts of the case, facts that would prove you innocent, the judge just says, “OK! You’re guilty!” We question other things, why can’t we question God? (The God I believed in was a scientist with a good sense of humor,btw. I never felt uncomfortable questioning things.)

@Hypocrisy_Central If you were to study something would you not want to have the book written by the one who created? Those other books authors or the person to which they are suppose to be about, made nothing. I am sure if one looked hard enough, they know where they are buried.

According to Christian belief, the Bible was written by the hand of man but divinely inspired. The Muslims and the Zoroastrians would say the same about their books. Many of the burial places of the Biblical authors are also supposedly known. The Catholic Church even seems to have relics of St. Peter. So once again, which divinely inspired book is correct?

He’s gone. I think the willful ignorance was just too much for him!
Well, he should try the Wisdom of God, then he can get over it, the Word cures ignorance but it is medicine most don’t want to take because it doesn’t taste as sweet as honey to them. I guess since he has to guess a lot, he could not last past 40 questions, I guess that is what happens when you have stuff you can’t truly prove 100%, and it is supposed to be all about the facts and the evidence and it still could not stand the fire.

Allahu Akbar!

Chum Challa!

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson! et al.

Weird Al Yankovich! Hail thee!

Nah… I have to draw a line there, @Dutchess_III

Oh man!