Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

[John_C]

Physics isn't there to tell you the truth, it simply provides a model that fits the data which can then be used for predictions. That is all.

So no, we don't objectively "know" that the universe started with a bid bang, but it does fit the currently available data better than any other theory, so we stick with it until we find new data that contradicts it, or someone creates a new theory that fits the data better.

A scientist is never 100% certain of anything, and doesn't "believe" in science in the same way that a religious person believes in god

 

[drew_drummer]

So you are telling me it is fact? It is a theory.

0:52 onwards.

 

[drew_drummer]

So you are telling me it is fact? It is a theory.

Here is the truth: We don't know how the universe started (or even if anything actually started). And people who think they have a general idea are fooling themselves and literally stabbing in the dark.

I respect people who can throw their hands up and admit WE DON'T KNOW how the universe started.

I don't belive in God(s), and I certainly don't think we have a handle on how everything works and never will. People believing in the big bang is akin to a religion in itself: Words on a page that a MAN wrote giving people COMFORT that they have an insight to the workings of space and time.

Good luck putting your "faith" in theories.

I'll just say it like it is. We are a bunch of shaved monkeys pretending to be smart. Science has been around for how long??? And we think we have figured out a (so they say 5 billion year conundrum of how our solar system was spawned? Sorry but that is vulgarity. Not much beta testing there buddy. We need a couple thousand more years of research before you can even being to scoff at anyones theory.

You assume that people write things on a page without doing any work, without gathering any evidence, or that they come up with something and then pick and choose the data to support it.

All of that is anathema to true science. Science gathers the evidence and analyses it, then comes up with a postulation. Once the postulation is proven time and time again, it is elevated to the status of a theory - the highest form a scientific concept can be attributed.

You have no understanding of science, which is why you scoff at it. You make no attempt to understand it, and would rather ignorantly brush it off as analogous to a religion, or that it requires faith.

BULLSHIT.

 

[thefyn]

Physics isn't there to tell you the truth, it simply provides a model that fits the data which can then be used for predictions. That is all.

So no, we don't objectively "know" that the universe started with a bid bang, but it does fit the currently available data better than any other theory, so we stick with it until we find new data that contradicts it, or someone creates a new theory that fits the data better.

A scientist is never 100% certain of anything, and doesn't "believe" in science in the same way that a religious person believes in god

Thanks, that is what I said.

On your 100% certainty point, I disagree. Scientists have facts to work with. And the facts they have at their disposal, they ask their peers for "leaps of faith" when they get theoretical.

Basically all they are doing is tearing down theory after theory and proving each other wrong, not right.

Like religion I think it is compounding mankind rather than helping it.

I'd like the greatest minds on earth to start making sure the ridiculous amount of processing power/money/resources given to them is poured towards something more philanthropic/practical.

 

[SocialNumb]

derp derp derp Gravity is just a theory.

 

[thefyn]

You assume that people write things on a page without doing any work, without gathering any evidence, or that they come up with something and then pick and choose the data to support it.

All of that is anathema to true science. Science gathers the evidence and analyses it, then comes up with a postulation. Once the postulation is proven time and time again, it is elevated to the status of a theory - the highest form a scientific concept can be attributed.

You have no understanding of science, which is why you scoff at it. You make no attempt to understand it, and would rather ignorantly brush it off as analogous to a religion, or that it requires faith.

BULLSHIT.

Where did I assume that?

Where do I scoff at science? I just chuckle at people who take theoretical science/physics as (ahem) gospel.

Practical science/physics/engineering is what I think we should be concentrating on. Because if you REALLY want some answers, you have to maintain life on earth long enough to explore and for our intellect to improve generation after generation.

Fast forward 200 years from now, and "Joe superstar scientist" will probably piss himself laughing if you mention the big bang theory to him. Get my drift?

 

[Notuern]

TheFyn.. please, for the love of Sneap, just shut the fuck up.

 

[JBroll]

Thefyn, nobody takes it as *gospel* and EVERYONE IS TRYING TO BREAK IT. The fact that you have the nerve to chuckle at incredibly-well-verified work when you don't even know what *theory* means in scientific practice is just absurd. DIsbelieve something? Want to see how they figured out how the universe expanded in the way it did, how we know what things are made of, and things like that? Read a book, read a paper - don't pretend that 'I don't see how they can figure this out' really means 'This can't be figured out', because there is quite clearly a huge difference between what you know and what can be known. If you think you can put a hole in any of their claims, do so.

Third line: good luck making the distinction at all. You simply can't - electricity, microwaves, and lasers were impractical for a long time. Number theory, which was for centuries considered to be too pure for applications and had no apparent purpose other than to be pretty, is now underlying every bit of electronic communication that you do. The distinction is entirely a figment of your imagination, and to think that you know better than the scientists what scientists should be doing is the mark of more arrogance than should be allowed without a permit.

Jeff

 

[drew_drummer]

Fast forward 200 years from now, and "Joe superstar scientist" will probably piss himself laughing if you mention the big bang theory to him. Get my drift?

This is built into the whole idea of theoretical science, and is exactly why science is the best chance we have of finding any answers. It doesn't have dogma... it has evidence. If evidence is disproven, it is discarded to make way for new improved evidence.

Your comparison to "faith" is just fucking ludicrous.

And the distinction between theorhetical science and physical science is misguided at best. They both form one another, and could not exist independently.

 

[thefyn]

Thefyn, nobody takes it as *gospel* and EVERYONE IS TRYING TO BREAK IT. The fact that you have the nerve to chuckle at incredibly-well-verified work when you don't even know what *theory* means in scientific practice is just absurd. DIsbelieve something? Want to see how they figured out how the universe expanded in the way it did, how we know what things are made of, and things like that? Read a book, read a paper - don't pretend that 'I don't see how they can figure this out' really means 'This can't be figured out', because there is quite clearly a huge difference between what you know and what can be known. If you think you can put a hole in any of their claims, do so.

Third line: good luck making the distinction at all. You simply can't - electricity, microwaves, and lasers were impractical for a long time. Number theory, which was for centuries considered to be too pure for applications and had no apparent purpose other than to be pretty, is now underlying every bit of electronic communication that you do. The distinction is entirely a figment of your imagination, and to think that you know better than the scientists what scientists should be doing is the mark of more arrogance than should be allowed without a permit.

Jeff

We are talking about THE BIG question. Not microwaves, electricity etc which all about refinement.

Don't side track this with huge sweeping generalizations on general scientific advancements.

We are talking about THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE right now.

Are you telling me that the big bang theory is verified? We can put this to bed now?

 

[drew_drummer]

It is verified that the universe is expanding, and not only that, it is speeding up. It has been observed. The postulation that I most recently read about is of the cyclical model - where time and space is a repetitive "string" of explosions, expansions, contractions, explosions, expansions, etc.. etc..

The big bang model is the model that started it all. It has its flaws, but it is a very good working model in most cases. You should respect it instead of being all "no-one saw the explosion, so therefore it's probable it didn't happen! omg lolz!"

 

[James Murphy]

Xst... thefyn is at it again, lol. i think i'll just enjoy this one from the sidelines.

as for the OP, i fit all 3 ... monogamy not so much as a younger man, but i was traveling the world and wanted to sample it's "wares". exclusivity, once it's professed and promised on both sides, is where i'm at these days... but it's something i've grown into over time.

 

[drew_drummer]

I think it's something most men grow into. We're not really built for it, but our brains and social awareness lead us to consider that it would be a good idea to remain monogamous. But I reckon a large majority of men still think about other women in a sexual way. And that is a symptom of our true desire - but we let logic and conscience rule the day.

At least that's how it is for me

 

[thefyn]

This is built into the whole idea of theoretical science, and is exactly why science is the best chance we have of finding any answers. It doesn't have dogma... it has evidence. If evidence is disproven, it is discarded to make way for new improved evidence.

Your comparison to "faith" is just fucking ludicrous.

And the distinction between theorhetical science and physical science is misguided at best. They both form one another, and could not exist independently.

Look, 30 years ago I did believe in God because I was a kid. I questioned that and no longer belived.

Just like I question people theorizing the universe is an expanding blast that came from an origin, and not exploding into space because there was no space...Oh wait, there is space that blinks in and out of existance??? Okkaaaay. Sounds feasible.

People have chopped and changed BBT over the years so much it has become a farce.

I don't believe in it because I believe in FRICTION. And I come to the conclusion an informed guess is still a guess when you look at the vastness/complexity of the question.

And there is dogma: BBT people are pretty adamant the universe is ever expanding. That is a stubborn held opinion if you ask me.

Well verified. haha.

 

[drew_drummer]

Your pretty naked with all this nihilism.

And there is dogma: BBT people are pretty adamant the universe is ever expanding. That is a stubborn held opinion if you ask me.

What proof would you require to be convinced that the universe is expanding?

 

[thefyn]

It is verified that the universe is expanding, and not only that, it is speeding up. It has been observed. The postulation that I most recently read about is of the cyclical model - where time and space is a repetitive "string" of explosions, expansions, contractions, explosions, expansions, etc.. etc..

The big bang model is the model that started it all. It has its flaws, but it is a very good working model in most cases. You should respect it instead of being all "no-one saw the explosion, so therefore it's probable it didn't happen! omg lolz!"

You just gave me your dogmatic view. Perfect timing to shine your central iron clad unshakable principle on me.

 

[drew_drummer]

Explain how it is dogmatic? Do you even know what dogma is?

 

[thefyn]

Explain how it is dogmatic? Do you even know what dogma is?

Since everyones opinion could be misinterprited, lets go by the wiki ref:

Considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion.

 

[Rough Divide]

It makes sense, especially the atheist bit, I mean look at some religions for example Christians, they have a lot of laughable and silly beliefs and expect you to follow them, in a way they force their opinions on you "if you don't believe in god, I'll kick your ass" although I'm not trying to give the impression I'm Christian bashing because to be honest all religion in my opinion is silly, none of it really adds up. I mean I rather believe in something that seems more true than have faith, for the religious people here, I'm not trying to talk you out of your faith or whatever, just giving my opinion.

 

[Cryo114]

I doubt you know enough about all religions to say that. I mean that with respect, though. You seem you might learn something if you looked into how radically different religions can be.