So that's it for the election.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And you, sir, have just committed the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. I am a declared atheist because I find absolutely no reason to believe in a deity. I spent many years trying to understand why there was such a widespread belief when I felt absolutely nothing. I found great peace when I ultimately discovered the theory of a proto-Indo-European religion.

As for Frieza's proposed scenario, it is patently ridiculous despite Alarti's poor refutation of it. No one chooses to believe in Christianity or any religion based on evidence or historicity. There is no verifiable evidence for even the existence of Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, much less the authenticity of any of their claims. People seem to believe in religion either because their parents told them to or because they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives.

The most interesting thing about this thread, to me, is that it turned into an argument against atheism rather than addressing the very clear differences between Mormonism and more common Christianity. Apparently no one wants to defend magic underwear and teleporting Jesus.

true atheism does not say, "i know there isn't a god or creator" it does say, "there is no reason to believe in a god/creator"

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And you, sir, have just committed the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. I am a declared atheist because I find absolutely no reason to believe in a deity. I spent many years trying to understand why there was such a widespread belief when I felt absolutely nothing. I found great peace when I ultimately discovered the theory of a proto-Indo-European religion.

As for Frieza's proposed scenario, it is patently ridiculous despite Alarti's poor refutation of it. No one chooses to believe in Christianity or any religion based on evidence or historicity. There is no verifiable evidence for even the existence of Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, much less the authenticity of any of their claims. People seem to believe in religion either because their parents told them to or because they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives.

The most interesting thing about this thread, to me, is that it turned into an argument against atheism rather than addressing the very clear differences between Mormonism and more common Christianity. Apparently no one wants to defend magic underwear and teleporting Jesus.

I don't know where you think you read this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. There are a dozen sources that reference Jesus during his lifetime and the immediate aftermath, including non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus both discussed Jesus extensively. We're as sure Jesus existed as we are sure about essentially anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It's also, again, extremely condescending to say that people believe in religion "because their parents told them to or they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives." You're less intelligent, less rational, and less fulfilled than a great number of people that believe in religion. That's not an insult, it's a fact -- and it goes for everyone else on here, too, so don't worry about it. There are verifiable geniuses, including scientific geniuses, that believe in the existence of a god. It's not because they haven't considered the notion that, hey, maybe there isn't one. It's not because their mom and dad told them to and they can't shake it after 50+ years. It's not because they can't handle the idea of a life without a god. You talk about remarkably intelligent adults like you're their all-knowing parent. Respect viewpoints other than your own.

Why do they believe, then? Because it is a logical belief. Because it is entirely rational to believe in the existence of a creator. The only life humans have ever been able to prove exists has come from other life. We've even created new life ourselves. Since all existing evidence has shown that life comes from other life, it is entirely rational to believe that there was a proto life form that birthed all the others. The image of that life form differs greatly, but that doesn't mark illogic. Many scientists believe life began on Earth with organic monomers condensing into polymers. There is no evidence for this, but they believe it -- because it had to start somewhere. What's the difference between believing in an infinitely simple organic polymer jump starting the evolution of life on Earth and an infinitely complex life form birthing the building blocks of life in the universe? Why is one more likely than the other? Because one adheres more easily to our 150 year old theory of evolution? The arrogance of humans is astounding to me sometimes. We've been kicking around this theory for a few generations in the midst of a 13+ billion year old universe and we think we've got a handle on it now. Yup, must've been ooze. Done and done. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain telling you that if we're assuming the spontaneous formation of complex polymers constituting life, then we may as well assume the spontaneous existence of any form of life. Neither has a basis in known science. We've tried to create organic polymers from monomers by replicating the early period of the Earth -- doesn't work.

Anyway, religion and god are very different. Believing that Mary was a virgin is much closer to bordering on the irrational. That's not to say it's not possible, because it is. But the canon of organized religion is often "irrational" without granting the initial conceit that a god exists in the image of that religion. Believing in a god, or a creator of some type, is very different and entirely rational. But if you're granting the rationality of a god, then you should be willing to grant the rationality of a few of the more common images of god. You don't need to grant that he was an interstellar conqueror named Xenu, but the image of a personal god is rational enough. If there were a personal god, it would be conceivable that he would try to impact mankind -- possibly via a messenger. Etc, etc. You can keep going down this road forever. But the genesis of it all is a belief in a creator -- which is objectively rational, even if it may ultimately be untrue.

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/invent...lectricity.htm

Haha before Franklin we have some dude playing with magnets and a couple of guys shocking themselves with static electricity. My cat could do both of those things.

Franklin was the first one to start trying to find its formal laws and properties and created its place as a scientific field.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha before Franklin we have some dude playing with magnets and a couple of guys shocking themselves with static electricity. My cat could do both of those things.

Franklin was the first one to start trying to find its formal laws and properties and created its place as a scientific field.

Sigh despite my better judgement since I am almost positive this whole thing is a troll, from the article:
" Otto von Guericke proved that a vacuum could exist. Creating a vacuum was essential for all kinds of further research into electronics. In 1660, Otto von Guericke invented a machine that produced static electricity, this was the first electric generator."
The first giant leap into the study of electricity. Otto Von Guericke made the first electric generator.

"In 1729, Stephen Gray discovered the principle of the conduction of electricity.

In 1733, Charles Francois du Fay discovered that electricity comes in two forms which he called resinous (-) and vitreous (+), now called negative and positive. "

The basic properties of the electricity.

"The leyden jar was invented Holland in 1745 and in Germany almost simultaneously."

The leyden jar was the original capacitor which is an integral component in every modern electrical device.

Ben Franklin discovered lightning and electricity were one and the same. That is about it. Not saying he wasn't a great man. His research on flatulence was marvelous. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
(Sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_Proudly)

Anywho, the biggest pioneers in the area of electricity were Telsa, Eddison and George Ohm. They discovered most of the properties of electricity.

[Lucky]

Benjamin Franklin conjectured, correctly, that St. Elmo's fire was electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theoretical changes to establish this.



AKA the 1st 1

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Benjamin Franklin conjectured, correctly, that St. Elmo's fire was electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theoretical changes to establish this.



AKA the 1st 1

Benjamin Franklin was an extraterrestrial race similar to the ants therefore had only a hive mind mentality so he only produced the entire theory of whatever the fuck you are talking about with the help of his billion+ alien brothers and sisters! >[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lucky]

In the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin conducted extensive research in electricity, selling his possessions to fund his work.

All so you can sit on ur ass and downplay his accomplishments.


Also when u search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity for names, Ben Franklin shows up 7 times and those noobs you mentioned barely even share 1 sentence.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin conducted extensive research in electricity, selling his possessions to fund his work.

All so you can sit on ur ass and downplay his accomplishments.

Also when u search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity for names, Ben Franklin shows up 7 times and those noobs you mentioned barely even share 1 sentence.

Not sur if cyrius.

[Lucky]

Ohm 5 mentions, Tesla 2 mentions, Edison 4.

AKA Ben Franklin most important person in the field of electricity

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ohm 5 mentions, Tesla 2 mentions, Edison 4.

AKA Ben Franklin most important person in the field of electricity

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]