HERETIC!
You may follow your false “4-downs” rule, but we know that the holy trinity of the three downs is the only true path to football salvation.
Pardon me, mate. Is there a *Football *field around here? [Holding a soccer ball]
Soccer is a great game! 
Ball in net = one point.
Is there some other kind of football?
Well, there’s the NCAA, NFL, CFL, AFL, and IFL, IIRC.
Ball goes in net, points go up. You can’t explain that!
You should ask a mormon
There is a difference between being intolerant of a religion, and being intolerant of stupidity (I don’t see what’s wrong with being intolerant of stupidity). For example, there is nothing stupid about supposing the Four Noble Truths (though it would be to accept them uncritically). More generally, there is nothing stupid about gravitating toward any attempt to organize some set of aesthetic, philosophical, or moral preferences under the umbrella of some unifying framework, and call it a religion. But to axiomatize that framework and adopt “axioms motivate preferences” in place of “preferences motivate axioms” is stupid. It’s the difference between observing the universe and finding that it looks like nothing more than atoms blindly following the laws of physics and then having the empathy-based preference to reduce suffering in the universe and so to adopt a framework that attempts to efficiently address the preference, and assuming with very little evidence that documents written by humans thousands of years ago were actually dictated by an otherwise undetectable moralizing and vindictive super-being whose preferences must be adopted as your own or else you might be sent to an eternity of suffering. The latter (as one example) is not just some preference worthy of respectful acknowledgement. It is simply stupid. It is intolerable not just for the stupidity in-and-of-itself and its documented history of being wrong and its prey on the vulnerable, but also in that it affects public policy, it affects the children under the care of the stupid, it has a history of potentiating dangerous fanaticism, and it aims to spread itself.
Correct me if I am wrong. But wasn’t it at one point “known and published” fact that the earth was the center of the universe? And then that was proven wrong? Wasn;t it at one point “known and published fact” that there was only one galaxy. Then in 1925, that was proven incorrect?
You really think humans know everything there is to know about the universe, and that our current scientific theories are all correct? If so, that would be a belief, and one that is most likely wrong.
What does that even mean? No sarcasm, I’ve heard that phrase before, but I don’t understand what it’s supposed to convey.
P.S. Of all the Christian evangels we’ve had on this board, Theophane is by far the nicest that I know of. Please don’t drive him off.
Nice, I dunno. He seems to be making a run at “most crazy”, though of course he has a long way to go to even be within sniffing distance of kanicbird.
Consider yourself corrected as to your second “fact”.
I do not understand. Are you saying they knew before the 1920’s that there were other galaxy’s? I have read that some thought andromeda might be, but it was accepted that it was a nebula, and there was only one galaxy. If they did know before the 20’s, I’d like to know.
And how can you say I am “corrected” when no one has said anything correcting me? If you think it is cool to post replies without answering the question and just making a smart ass comment, then ok. But then why post at all?
This is such an inane argument. “Sometimes we are wrong so whatever I believe might be true even if it contradicts everything we know”. Somehow it always seems to apply to God, because people hold to an a priori existence of God, even if they don’t know what it is. Plug in anything other than God and it shows how silly it is:
“Sometimes we are wrong, so {a tea cup orbiting the sun, Yeti, invisible pink unicorns, leprechauns} might exist. So there.”
You’d have a looooooong ways to go to beat Kanicbird.
I piss off the atheists AND the evangelicals. (I’m just a plain old theists in that I believe in a god, but not really any particular religion. The atheists think I’m deluded, and the evangelicals think I’m a heathen. I can’t win.)
I never said any of that. El_Kabong said everything he knows about the universe is fact. I was just pointing out that facts change when we get new information. In 20 years, we may have a new view of how things work that does not include Dark Energy. We may adopt a theory that works without the Big Bang.
If you put blind faith into a scientific theory and refuse to accept the possibility that you may be wrong, how is that different from a theist’s belief in god?
Science is about testing theories and advancing or disproving them. Simply saying this is right, and will never be disproven is silly. When Einstein published General Relativity even he thought black holes wern;t actually possible. But now we have strong evidence they do exist.
He said “known and published fact”. I think if you are fair in trying to interpret his intent, it is not that his beliefs are always “right”, but that they are based on current scientific understanding. Such beliefs, if backed by evidence surpassing some threshold of certainty at a certain time, are often colloquially referred to as “facts” even though they may in rare cases be found to be mistaken.
That’s not an inane argument at all. It’s an attitude of humility. Humility and awarenes of how small we are in the grand scheme of things.
You think that the universe was created by a guy who loves you. You have no evidence for this belief.
This is among the least humble things anyone could claim.
I believe the universe was created by a God (not a guy) who loves me. It may not seem humble to a non-believer but I assure it is an extremely humbling (and liberating) statement for the person who makes it. Go ahead and mock me, I don’t care. Do your worst. Have at it, hoss.