Politics & Stuff

[cosmicway 1,333]

I agree about health care because we are all vulnerable to diseases.
But I have reservations. Some people complain about a 20 euro ticket to enter the hospital that was introduced one time. I said to them if you become sick and it costs you only 20 quid to get treated then we live in socialist paradise ! If you fight every day and they treat you for nose bleed, then pay the 20.

Free education is good to have but it is also by and large a fraud.
We have free education. Back in my school days I used to attend tutorial classes at the British council, for the GCE. That was normal for me because how else could I prepare for the GCE ? But every night when I returned home my school teacher of Physics was in the same bus - he was teaching in tutorial schools in the same neighbourhood as the British Council, for Greek university entry exams !
So those school pupils who wanted to enter those exams had to pay the tutorial schools and it was the same teacher as well !
So the free school was a fraud or was n't it ?
Those who did not attend the special tutorial classes had no chance. But those who did not attend were not the poor ones. It was mainly the sons of shop keepers and other trades like that who were to carry on in the family business and did not care about higher education.
So schools with logical cost is the solution. Not schools for millionaires and not so called free schools that are useless.
Btw the Greek universities -just like the ones of Uk- were not of course prepared to lower their standards, to reflect the mediocrity of the state run middle schools. The entry exam was -and is- a slaughterhouse !
 

[manpe 10,861]

7 hours ago, Fernando said:

There's many out there, just that you have not done the research...

I will give you a couple of examples besides the issue of transitional species. 

First we have Dark Energy.

This guy explains it better than me so....:

 

Second we have the Goldilocks concept. The concept that earth is just at the right place, right spot in the solar system, galaxy and universe. 

A long with the Goldilocks concept, you can add these two. If the earth's rotation was different we would have a catastrophe for humans making civilization impossible. The tilt of the rotational axis is just the right direction to allow life in the globe. 

Third there's Genetic Entropy. This shows that the human race is actually deteriorating, not evolving. 

Fourth this one is interesting, Natural selection has not explain the origin of information in DNA. 

And last is the Cambrian explosion. This is linked with a lack of transitional species. There's a lack of transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian explosion. 

Actually the case I'm making for is not much for evolution but intelligent design. That as you study more and more the universe you find order and not chaos. 

None of that comes close to convincing me of creationism/intelligent design. For every theory, you can find the other side (trying to) debunk it. There are A LOT of unanswered questions, things we don't know and in this current state cannot comprehend or have the means to find the answers. Instead of trying to explain every unexplainable thing by giving credit to god, I leave those questions open to speculation until something factual comes out. Quite simply the idea of a single deity being the creator of EVERYTHING is too far fetched for me, irrational. Science is much more rational for me, it is comprehensible and compatible with my line of thinking. I'm not gonna give more lengthy replies on this matter because it is getting off-topic and Dion already says what I think.

However, this discussion has reignited my interest in existential matters, creationist and evolution. Thank you for providing your view of the other side. I still maintain that religion has nothing to do with morality though

[CHOULO19 24,332]

So a guy just hijacked a plane to deliver a love letter to his ex-wife...

I know if you are involved in any way in the debacle, you won't find this funny, but lmfao!  

[manpe 10,861]

24 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

So a guy just hijacked a plane to deliver a love letter to his ex-wife...

I know if you are involved in any way in the debacle, you won't find this funny, but lmfao!  

What can I say.. you just can't trust the postal services anymore, if you want something done, do it yourself.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Just now, manpe said:

What can I say.. you just can't trust the postal services anymore, if you want something done, do it yourself.

Well we do say that all is fair in love and war....but fucking hell!

 

On a related note, I just heard that Sam Harris just called for the profiling of all divorced historians  

 

[Fernando 6,491]

11 hours ago, Dion said:

The bolded part I think is a terrible concept. I get the impression it starts from the wrong place. First and foremost, life didn't have to exist, you know? Life is the exception, it looks miraculous because we ARE the exception. Look how many planets and how many places don't have any form of life, or at least none that we know of or similar to the ones we are familiar with. I don't know how to put this better but it seems everything fell in place in this particular place and time because it has. If it hadn't we wouldn't be here to observe it. Imagine if the earth's rotation had been different – well, we wouldn't exist then and as such we would never know, you see? We are only able to see the events lined up because that's the condition for our existence. And also there might be another couple of exceptions like us, because the universe is huge it is likely that it happened elsewhere in the cosmos where conditions are similar. And second, there might be other forms of life that we don't even know how to start looking for because they are not biochemical forms of life like ourselves or because they may exist in another scale of size or parameter.

This is the same reasoning religion use. There might be a heaven or hell. There might be a creator. It's called faith. 

But let's say your observation is true, then my question is how it got there? 

You see, many scientist agree that the universe had a beginning ie big bang. A start to the universe suggest that there's must be a causal agent beyond space and time that cause the universe into being. 

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem says any universe that expands over its history must have a space time beginning (this implies there must be a creator beyond space and time that created everything). 

And only a universe that expands is able to have life. 

[Stingray 9,441]

This why Evolution doesn't make sense to me.

Those who believe in evolution it shouldn't matter to them about morale right. Morality comes from a god, in which they don't believe.

With Evolution you just live and die. No good or bad matters, because you go back to nothing.

Now if there is a god, then your accountable to him.

I already posted it, there is no link between morality and religion - quite the opposite. Your premisse that morality comes from God (or god) is simply wrong. Its not because you want it to be true, that it is true. But it is no use discussing science here, you would not accept it anyway.

Ps: please do not debate evolution with me.

Ps2: you have a weird idea about morality. Are you moral just because you want to avoid being punished in the afterlife? Atheists might be moral because they themselves think it is the right thing to do. Now what kinda motivation to be moral would be superior?

[cosmicway 1,333]

4 minutes ago, Stingray said:

I already posted it, there is no link between morality and religion - quite the opposite. Your premisse that morality comes from God (or god) is simply wrong. Its not because you want it to be true, that it is true. But it is no use discussing science here, you would not accept it anyway.

God functions as a Poincaret probability engine.
You 're here infront of a machine capable of instantly communicating with Caracas Venezuela and Honolulu further out..
If an ancient Roman soldier were to see this, what would he think ?
So God's presence is fairly obvious, if not by 100%.
It's the God of peace of course, not the God of the crackpot loonies.

[Stingray 9,441]

God functions as a Poincaret probability engine.

You 're here infront of a machine capable of instantly communicating with Caracas Venezuela and Honolulu further out..

If an ancient Roman soldier were to see this, what would he think ?

So God's presence is fairly obvious, if not by 100%.

It's the God of peace of course, not the God of the crackpot loonies.

Poincaré (not Poincaret) would turn himself in his grave tbh. Especially after he claimed:

"Thinking must never submit itself, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to whatever it may be, if not to facts themselves, because, for it, to submit would be to cease to be."

[Dion 2,476]

11 hours ago, Fernando said:

This is the same reasoning religion use. There might be a heaven or hell. There might be a creator. It's called faith. 

But let's say your observation is true, then my question is how it got there? 

You see, many scientist agree that the universe had a beginning ie big bang. A start to the universe suggest that there's must be a causal agent beyond space and time that cause the universe into being. 

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem says any universe that expands over its history must have a space time beginning (this implies there must be a creator beyond space and time that created everything). 

And only a universe that expands is able to have life. 

Yes. I'm more of an agnostic atheist, as such I believe it is possible that there was a creator. Do I think it is likely? No. Especially not a god in the molds of any religion I've seen so far. None of those religions nor their gods look like what I think the creator would have been like or would have wanted to pass to us as a doctrine.

The origin of everything is way harder to guess than the origin of life and there are many theories that look somewhat plausible given how little we know about it. As for myself, I like the superstring theories. Even if the universe and space-time as we know it may have had a beginning and the big bang theory is somewhat right, perhaps the conditions in the background that originated the big bang have always existed before time even began in the big bang. It is difficult for our brains to accept something that doesn't have a beginning because we are wired to believe things start and things end from most of our observations of the natural world. But if you look at it, the concept of God doesn't solve this either, if God created everything, then who created God? Where does he come from? This only leaves the conclusion that He must have always existed. If one can accept something to be perpetual like God, one can also suppose that, instead of the creator, maybe the "creation" has always existed and there was no need for a creator. Maybe the fundamental matter that constitutes everything has always existed and by chance things lined up in a way to cause the big bang and the origin of our universe as we know it. That sounds to me as good or better than a Creator-creation hypothesis.

[Fernando 6,491]

4 hours ago, Dion said:

Yes. I'm more of an agnostic atheist, as such I believe it is possible that there was a creator. Do I think it is likely? No. Especially not a god in the molds of any religion I've seen so far. None of those religions nor their gods look like what I think the creator would have been like or would have wanted to pass to us as a doctrine.

The origin of everything is way harder to guess than the origin of life and there are many theories that look somewhat plausible given how little we know about it. As for myself, I like the superstring theories. Even if the universe and space-time as we know it may have had a beginning and the big bang theory is somewhat right, perhaps the conditions in the background that originated the big bang have always existed before time even began in the big bang. It is difficult for our brains to accept something that doesn't has a beginning because we are wired to believe things start and things end. But if you look at it, the concept of God doesn't solve this either, if God created everything, then who created God? Where does he come from? This only leaves the conclusion that He must have always existed. If one can accept something to be perpetual like God, one can also suppose that, instead of the creator, maybe the "creation" has always existed and there was no need for a creator. Maybe the fundamental matter that constitutes everything has always existed and by chance things lined up in a way to cause the big bang and the origin of our universe as we know it. That sounds to me as good or better than a Creator-creation hypothesis.

Good stuff. But as it stands your relying on faith that this is true just like a religious person with his faith for God. 

So in the end its all about faith....

[Dion 2,476]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

Good stuff. But as it stands your relying on faith that this is true just like a religious person with his faith for God. 

So in the end its all about faith....

I don't know if I would call it faith. Calling it a guess would be more appropriate, I have absolutely no idea whether what I just said is the actual case or not, I just consider it as a possibility. I think faith requires a bit more confidence in one's beliefs. Faith as I understand is a strong belief in something that has little or no supportive evidence. In this sense, I wouldn't call it faith because I lack the confidence that this is the explanation. Additionally, my belief in evolution isn't either because there is strong evidence supporting it, at this point in time it's something almost certain. And even if it's wrong by any chance, I don't think anyone can say it did not make a hell lot of sense to reach such a conclusion given the information we have today. Heck, even popes have claimed it to be true.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

On 28/03/2016 at 1:31 AM, Fernando said:

 

 

I fail to grasp, how dark energy even semi-convincingly confirms creationism and/or debunks evolution? Why they even took dark energy as an example? If that's the reasoning they do they would have done sooner to take gravity, or even H2o as an example.

It's all chemistry and relativity really.
If there was some kind of intelligent design it would all be so boring and we wouldn't even be asking these questions.


Also, morality comes from Batman. That's the end of it and i won't hear another word. Peace.

[Fernando 6,491]

11 hours ago, Dion said:

I don't know if I would call it faith. Calling it a guess would be more appropriate, I have absolutely no idea whether what I just said is the actual case or not, I just consider it as a possibility. I think faith requires a bit more confidence in one's beliefs. Faith as I understand is a strong belief in something that has little or no supportive evidence. In this sense, I wouldn't call it faith because I lack the confidence that this is the explanation. Additionally, my belief in evolution isn't either because there is strong evidence supporting it, at this point in time it's something almost certain. And even if it's wrong by any chance, I don't think anyone can say it did not make a hell lot of sense to reach such a conclusion given the information we have today. Heck, even popes have claimed it to be true.

This is totally wrong. As I just provided you many examples as to why evolution has many flaws mainly to the beginning of the universe. And you just stated that this is a mystery and hence have to hope for other believes. Like the constant that the universe has always existed while scientific study prove this is not what they see.

Scientific study states that the universe had a beginning... 

[Dion 2,476]

3 hours ago, Fernando said:

This is totally wrong. As I just provided you many examples as to why evolution has many flaws mainly to the beginning of the universe. And you just stated that this is a mystery and hence have to hope for other believes. Like the constant that the universe has always existed while scientific study prove this is not what they see.

Scientific study states that the universe had a beginning... 

Evolution and the origin of the universe or life are completely separate things. They state the universe as we know it had a beginning. And such as everything else with science that may even be proved wrong in the future upon arrival of new evidence.

Look at it this way. You get home and your wife is naked with another dude in the bedroom, they're panting, there's sperm... do you know for sure they had sex? No, you don't. Is it completely plausible to assume so? I think it is. That's about the degree of evidence we have that evolution is right. We don't have a live stream or video tape of the act but we're pretty damn close.

[Fernando 6,491]

1 hour ago, Dion said:

Evolution and the origin of the universe or life are completely separate things. They state the universe as we know it had a beginning. And such as everything else with science that may even be proved wrong in the future upon arrival of new evidence.

Look at it this way. You get home and your wife is naked with another dude in the bedroom, they're panting, there's sperm... do you know for sure they had sex? No, you don't. Is it completely plausible to assume so? I think it is. That's about the degree of evidence we have that evolution is right. We don't have a live stream or video tape of the act but we're pretty damn close.

No my friend, everything about the origin of universe is vital to any theory a person has. Right now your just making assumptions about the future.

Again your assumptions and believe that in the future it would be something else is just about as close as you can get to faith.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

43 minutes ago, Fernando said:

No my friend, everything about the origin of universe is vital to any theory a person has. Right now your just making assumptions about the future.

Until we have concrete evidence is based on assumptions. Just like religious people have.

I'm not sure as to what you're referring in there, but we do have CMB to provide evidence of the big bang.
A god, this, i assume, enormous being that sits upon a throne of interstellar medium and engineered all of life, has what exactly to provide evidence to its existence? A book written by men?
All of the universe it's evidence to its existence? And what exactly links it to him? Men's imagination?
Too simplistic. And why choose our people to transfer his words in written material? Out of the surely thousands of life forms out there.
In one of your posts you wrote how without these goldilocks circumstances there would be life. To that sentence i would add "as we know it" There wouldn't be life as we know it.
Too self entitled in my opinion.
Surely if he engineered this beautiful creation, he would have made sure at least on one planet people would know for sure of its existence, as one being and one only; and yet each culture has its own god, maker, whatever you want to name it. So is it only one god, or is it multiple gods out there? Or it's all the same god, only people gave him different names? Or is it god just a makeshift object of our minds, which in their frailty try to explain as best as they can something they cannot yet grasp?
Surely if we would walk together, say in a park, and a lighting out of nowhere would strike the ground near us, you would scoff at me if i would say "Zeus made that!"
And why is that? Because you know, i assume, it's just the product of an electrical storm, not a god who sent that upon us. The greeks, centuries ago would have disagreed, probably the most fanatics would have killed you on the spot, claiming that it was Zeus' will (hyperbole i know).
Surely you can relate the examples to different set of circumstances.
Does god exists? Yes, if you name him chemistry, fundamental forces and chance, and don't believe all of this is some kind of intelligent design.

[Dion 2,476]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

No my friend, everything about the origin of universe is vital to any theory a person has. Right now your just making assumptions about the future.

Again your assumptions and believe that in the future it would be something else is just about as close as you can get to faith.

Evolution deals with how organisms change over time and differentiate themselves from one another. It has nothing to do with the origin of life or universe. It only deals with life after it appeared and it has nothing to do with how it was originated. It is even compatible with creationism somewhat if we assume god created the first organisms who then evolved through mutation and natural selection. The origin of everything and evolution are not tied up. To be honest, most of the complaints I see from ordinary people about evolution come from a poor understanding of it.