How to discuss religion with believers?

[Jackie]

[Jehanne]

[T0 Th3 M4X]

That's conjecture and uses circular logic.  It doesn't demonstrate dark matter.  It assumes dark matter and uses bullet clusters to try and support that conclusion instead of using bullet clusters to prove dark matter.

If I put out a mousetrap (system), it doesn't prove there is a mouse (object) in the house.  The idea of a mouse doesn't prove the system.  The system proves the mouse by identifying it.  As such we can conclude the mousetrap as an effective system.

And, so, you're saying that unless physicists can weigh electrons on a scale, then, they don't have mass?  Or, their mass cannot be precisely determined?

When something explodes, there's actually quite a bit of order to it.  Even know we see a universe where objects maintain their angular momentum as they expand outward.  For example, I believe it's something like 4 cm the moon moves away from the earth each year, and it's constant.  Angular momentum isn't going to change on its own in a closed system without some other force interfering.  This is a big reason why the CMB field has been a problem.  It's not as smooth as it should be, so to account for all the splits, gaps, pockets, or whatever else, something needs to have created them.  Part was the solution was to hypothesize dark matter to account for it.  Not only that, but asserting about 85 percent of the matter in the universe being such.  But if we can't confirm there is a such thing, then it's not reasonable to suggest it as a cause for anything.  And even if we did find something like it, we would still need to find a whole lot of it to make it work.

I'm not even going to go as far as to say it doesn't, or can't exist, but we need to identify first before suggesting it's causing something to happen.  Just posting a picture of a "small" explosion to illustrate.  You should be able to see in form that it's actually pretty organized as it expands.  There's nice symmetry on both sides as it explodes.

With that, I'll just stop by saying the whole matter is far more complicated, so this wasn't meant to be an end all explanation.

---

The evidence you're claiming is inconclusive and literally filled with holes.  To fill in the holes, they have proposed dark matter.  They propose that around 85 percent of the matter must be dark matter, yet nobody has been able to show any.   Seems like an exceptionally big problem.

Uggg, you cannot complain about criticism of of old mythology, then talk about science. If you are going to argue against science, hate to burst your bubble, but that does not point to your club or God. The only thing attacking a scientific claim can do is debunk that claim, it still would not point to Allah or Buddha or Jesus, or Yahweh or Vishnu.

If a scientific claim is debunked, and the big bang is CONFIRMED and has been repeatedly over decades, but the only thing that confirms or debunks a claim is peer review, and religion is not peer review, because religion is bias and scientific method is neutral, separate from, and independent of any religious labels or god claims.

Muslims and Jews and Buddhist and Hindus, also pull this tactic too.

When the apologist cannot flat out sell "Hey I think this is neat", they resort to attacking science and say, "You don't know everything", then when they cant do that, they resort to, "Science points to my club/holy writing/ deity/s. 

There is absolutely no dispute within the scientific community at that level of those who discovered microwave background radiation that the big bang theory DOES make predictions. That is the very definition of a theory.

Now show me where in your holy book where you see the letter for letter words "Dark matter" or "microwave background radiation" and show me the formulas in that holy writing that back up those words. Hint, "God did it" is not an answer.

I'm not arguing against science.  Please stop making assumptions about anything and everything, especially to things I haven't suggested.

If you want to actually know what I think, just ask, and not tell me what I think already.  Just like the bit about telling me I said there was no Thor or whoever else.   I would be glad to share my thoughts on those kinda things, but what you're asserting usually doesn't jive with what I would've said had you asked.

[Jackie]

And, so, you're saying that unless physicists can weigh electrons on a scale, then, they don't have mass?  Or, their mass cannot be precisely determined?

When something explodes, there's actually quite a bit of order to it.  Even know we see a universe where objects maintain their angular momentum as they expand outward.  For example, I believe it's something like 4 cm the moon moves away from the earth each year, and it's constant.  Angular momentum isn't going to change on its own in a closed system without some other force interfering.  This is a big reason why the CMB field has been a problem.  It's not as smooth as it should be, so to account for all the splits, gaps, pockets, or whatever else, something needs to have created them.  Part was the solution was to hypothesize dark matter to account for it.  Not only that, but asserting about 85 percent of the matter in the universe being such.  But if we can't confirm there is a such thing, then it's not reasonable to suggest it as a cause for anything.  And even if we did find something like it, we would still need to find a whole lot of it to make it work.

I'm not even going to go as far as to say it doesn't, or can't exist, but we need to identify first before suggesting it's causing something to happen.  Just posting a picture of a "small" explosion to illustrate.  You should be able to see in form that it's actually pretty organized as it expands.  There's nice symmetry on both sides as it explodes.

With that, I'll just stop by saying the whole matter is far more complicated, so this wasn't meant to be an end all explanation.

---

Uggg, you cannot complain about criticism of of old mythology, then talk about science. If you are going to argue against science, hate to burst your bubble, but that does not point to your club or God. The only thing attacking a scientific claim can do is debunk that claim, it still would not point to Allah or Buddha or Jesus, or Yahweh or Vishnu.

If a scientific claim is debunked, and the big bang is CONFIRMED and has been repeatedly over decades, but the only thing that confirms or debunks a claim is peer review, and religion is not peer review, because religion is bias and scientific method is neutral, separate from, and independent of any religious labels or god claims.

Muslims and Jews and Buddhist and Hindus, also pull this tactic too.

When the apologist cannot flat out sell "Hey I think this is neat", they resort to attacking science and say, "You don't know everything", then when they cant do that, they resort to, "Science points to my club/holy writing/ deity/s. 

There is absolutely no dispute within the scientific community at that level of those who discovered microwave background radiation that the big bang theory DOES make predictions. That is the very definition of a theory.

Now show me where in your holy book where you see the letter for letter words "Dark matter" or "microwave background radiation" and show me the formulas in that holy writing that back up those words. Hint, "God did it" is not an answer.

I'm not arguing against science.  Please stop making assumptions about anything and everything, especially to things I haven't suggested.

If you want to actually know what I think, just ask, and not tell me what I think already.  Just like the bit about telling me I said there was no Thor or whoever else.   I would be glad to share my thoughts on those kinda things, but what you're asserting usually doesn't jive with what I would've said had you asked.

Still missing my point. I really don't care if you are arguing for or against science. Neither tactic prove your personal pet deity is the default position that is agreed on.

The progression with apologists of EVERY religion goes like this.

Club fan (insert religion here), "I have this really neat club I belong to."

Me, "Ok, so what, you are in the same boat as everyone of any other religion."

Club fan," Yea well, science doesn't know everything."

Me, "Yea sure, but there is lots science does know, and can rule out."

Club fan, "Yea well, I don't reject all science"

Me, "Yea, ok, but only and up until it conflicts with your beliefs, then you cherry pick."

Club fan, "No I don't"

Me, "Fine, spend some time debating people of all the world's religions. Then get back to me when you all come to a consensus."

Now, before you respond, keep in mind I have been at this since 2001, and have taken on Christians, and Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews and Hindus, and even Rastas a couple of times.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

When something explodes, there's actually quite a bit of order to it.  Even know we see a universe where objects maintain their angular momentum as they expand outward.  For example, I believe it's something like 4 cm the moon moves away from the earth each year, and it's constant.  Angular momentum isn't going to change on its own in a closed system without some other force interfering.  This is a big reason why the CMB field has been a problem.  It's not as smooth as it should be, so to account for all the splits, gaps, pockets, or whatever else, something needs to have created them.  Part was the solution was to hypothesize dark matter to account for it.  Not only that, but asserting about 85 percent of the matter in the universe being such.  But if we can't confirm there is a such thing, then it's not reasonable to suggest it as a cause for anything.  And even if we did find something like it, we would still need to find a whole lot of it to make it work.

I'm not even going to go as far as to say it doesn't, or can't exist, but we need to identify first before suggesting it's causing something to happen.  Just posting a picture of a "small" explosion to illustrate.  You should be able to see in form that it's actually pretty organized as it expands.  There's nice symmetry on both sides as it explodes.

With that, I'll just stop by saying the whole matter is far more complicated, so this wasn't meant to be an end all explanation.

---

I'm not arguing against science.  Please stop making assumptions about anything and everything, especially to things I haven't suggested.

If you want to actually know what I think, just ask, and not tell me what I think already.  Just like the bit about telling me I said there was no Thor or whoever else.   I would be glad to share my thoughts on those kinda things, but what you're asserting usually doesn't jive with what I would've said had you asked.

Still missing my point. I really don't care if you are arguing for or against science. Neither tactic prove your personal pet deity is the default position that is agreed on.

The progression with apologists of EVERY religion goes like this.

Club fan (insert religion here), "I have this really neat club I belong to."

Me, "Ok, so what, you are in the same boat as everyone of any other religion."

Club fan," Yea well, science doesn't know everything."

Me, "Yea sure, but there is lots science does know, and can rule out."

Club fan, "Yea well, I don't reject all science"

Me, "Yea, ok, but only and up until it conflicts with your beliefs, then you cherry pick."

Club fan, "No I don't"

Me, "Fine, spend some time debating people of all the world's religions. Then get back to me when you all come to a consensus."

Now, before you respond, keep in mind I have been at this since 2001, and have taken on Christians, and Muslims, and Jews and Hindus, and even Rastas a couple of times.

Sounds like you're trapped in your own little world where you are the brightest star.  If you don't want to be scientific, then please don't waste my time trying to tell me about science.

"Look at me, look at me, I've taken on religious people since 2001 and must be given a consensus to proceed logically."

[Jehanne]

Still missing my point. I really don't care if you are arguing for or against science. Neither tactic prove your personal pet deity is the default position that is agreed on.

The progression with apologists of EVERY religion goes like this.

Club fan (insert religion here), "I have this really neat club I belong to."

Me, "Ok, so what, you are in the same boat as everyone of any other religion."

Club fan," Yea well, science doesn't know everything."

Me, "Yea sure, but there is lots science does know, and can rule out."

Club fan, "Yea well, I don't reject all science"

Me, "Yea, ok, but only and up until it conflicts with your beliefs, then you cherry pick."

Club fan, "No I don't"

Me, "Fine, spend some time debating people of all the world's religions. Then get back to me when you all come to a consensus."

Now, before you respond, keep in mind I have been at this since 2001, and have taken on Christians, and Muslims, and Jews and Hindus, and even Rastas a couple of times.

Sounds like you're trapped in your own little world where you are the brightest star.  If you don't want to be scientific, then please don't waste my time trying to tell me about science.

"Look at me, look at me, I've taken on religious people since 2001 and must be given a consensus to proceed logically."

Around 3,000 cosmologists in the World today are actively publishing articles (typically, 2 to 3 per year) in professional, peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Can you name anyone, a single physicist, who supports your ideas?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Sounds like you're trapped in your own little world where you are the brightest star.  If you don't want to be scientific, then please don't waste my time trying to tell me about science.

"Look at me, look at me, I've taken on religious people since 2001 and must be given a consensus to proceed logically."

Around 3,000 cosmologists in the World today are actively publishing articles (typically, 2 to 3 per year) in professional, peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Can you name anyone, a single physicist, who supports your ideas?

Not to detract, because I'm happy to respond here soon, but didn't we have this conversation already?  It might not have been you, but someone and I showed them one, then they implied they didn't count.

Also, what idea would you like to look at specifically? Siince we are discussing multiple issues and it would be easier to simplify it rather than try to tackle multiple items at once.  Thanks.

[Scientia]

[Drich]

[Drich]