Topic: Why is the Doctor an atheist?
+Anonymous A — 11.3 years ago #41,579
Why does he find it hard to believe he was created in a loving God's image?
+Anonymous B — 11.3 years ago, 3 minutes later[T] [B] #453,506
You mean God looks like an asshole?
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #453,507
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #453,509
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #453,514
+Anonymous E — 11.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #453,515
the Docs family is so poor sometimes they have worms for dinner..
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #453,518
@previous (E)
Which makes it more surprising that Doc is an atheist.
@453,514 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Negi is a cool bro.
Which makes it more surprising that Doc is an atheist.
@453,514 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Negi is a cool bro.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #453,519
+Anonymous F — 11.3 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #453,522
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #453,523
@previous (F)
It's a matter of faith. Why do you not have that, Anon F?
@453,519 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Is everybody Negi?
It's a matter of faith. Why do you not have that, Anon F?
@453,519 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Is everybody Negi?
·Anonymous F — 11.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #453,524
@previous (A)
So faith makes you believe in things that are not fact? I wants facts facts facts... Not faith...
So faith makes you believe in things that are not fact? I wants facts facts facts... Not faith...
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.3 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #453,526
·Anonymous F — 11.3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,527
+RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,530
The rejection of a divine entity is oanly sensible policy that folloas extant evidence, foar which there is none.The questionable ethical basis of The Doctoar is a separate issue stemming from his intellectual bankruptcy, denoated moast of all by his failure to admit his roal.
+Anonymous H — 11.3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,532
God is just another name for that cosmic gas. Universe belched & instant big bang.
+Syntax — 11.3 years ago, 55 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,545
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,546
I will drop my RedCream persona for the duration to discuss this.
Everyone has trouble with the Big Bang but the physics makes it plausible. Taking physics rules back to the first 10^-43 second is possible but the results are less and less reliable. But taking them back to the first few seconds or so has a very sound basis using the Standard Model. At that level, the heat and density of everything everywhere was extremely high. Hotter and denser than any star today, or any star that can be.* Even at the most extreme conditions today, let's say when s neutron star impacts another neutron star (which then merge and almost always form a black hole), the temperatures of such events can reach billions of degrees. The temperature of the Big Bang at the more stable point of physics was much higher than that.
So people simply have to accept that however hard to believe those conditions were, they DID happen. The Big Bang did happen. And it continues to bedevil our minds about what caused that to happen. Even if it wasn't a singularity event (where information can not pass), it was strong enough to wipe out useful information about "what came before" anyway. About as good as we can get today is to study enough data (fucking truckloads of it) to detect "baryonic acoustic oscillations"... imperfections in the expansion of the universe that resulted in the filamentary structure of galactic clusters we see today.
* The high density isn't an issue since the universe had 'impetus'. The expansion was occurring much faster than the speed of light. Therefore the high density (which today easily results in a black hole) didn't cause re-singularitization of the universe. Matter (as such) was simply expanding at rate much, much faster than gravity could act on it.
Everyone has trouble with the Big Bang but the physics makes it plausible. Taking physics rules back to the first 10^-43 second is possible but the results are less and less reliable. But taking them back to the first few seconds or so has a very sound basis using the Standard Model. At that level, the heat and density of everything everywhere was extremely high. Hotter and denser than any star today, or any star that can be.* Even at the most extreme conditions today, let's say when s neutron star impacts another neutron star (which then merge and almost always form a black hole), the temperatures of such events can reach billions of degrees. The temperature of the Big Bang at the more stable point of physics was much higher than that.
So people simply have to accept that however hard to believe those conditions were, they DID happen. The Big Bang did happen. And it continues to bedevil our minds about what caused that to happen. Even if it wasn't a singularity event (where information can not pass), it was strong enough to wipe out useful information about "what came before" anyway. About as good as we can get today is to study enough data (fucking truckloads of it) to detect "baryonic acoustic oscillations"... imperfections in the expansion of the universe that resulted in the filamentary structure of galactic clusters we see today.
* The high density isn't an issue since the universe had 'impetus'. The expansion was occurring much faster than the speed of light. Therefore the high density (which today easily results in a black hole) didn't cause re-singularitization of the universe. Matter (as such) was simply expanding at rate much, much faster than gravity could act on it.
+On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,555
@previous (RedCream )
RedCream never drop his persona and shtick. Unserious fraud RedCream clone detected.
RedCream never drop his persona and shtick. Unserious fraud RedCream clone detected.
+Cougar M — 11.3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,558
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,560
+Anonymous L — 11.3 years ago, 22 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,575
@453,546 (RedCream )
~490 million light years ago. Makes me wonder if the right hand of God knew what the left hand was doing.
~490 million light years ago. Makes me wonder if the right hand of God knew what the left hand was doing.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 54 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,581
·Syntax — 11.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,585
+Anonymous M — 11.3 years ago, 10 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,586
+Anonymous N — 11.3 years ago, 18 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,591
@453,581 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
@previous (M)
Eisenstein, D. J. et al. (2005). "Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large‐Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies". The Astrophysical Journal 633
> BAO matter clustering provides a "standard ruler" for length scale in cosmology.The length of this standard ruler (~490 million light years in today's universe can be measured by looking at the large scale structure of matter using astronomical surveys.
@previous (M)
Eisenstein, D. J. et al. (2005). "Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large‐Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies". The Astrophysical Journal 633
> BAO matter clustering provides a "standard ruler" for length scale in cosmology.The length of this standard ruler (~490 million light years in today's universe can be measured by looking at the large scale structure of matter using astronomical surveys.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,592
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 8 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,627
@453,555 (On !Uvm54ORbmo)
> RedCream never drop his persona and shtick.
Wrong. When I have something serious to say which involves a significant amount of text, I announce that I am dropping my persoana foar the poast.
Yoar RedCream Knowledge Index (RCKI) is very, very loa.
> RedCream never drop his persona and shtick.
Wrong. When I have something serious to say which involves a significant amount of text, I announce that I am dropping my persoana foar the poast.
Yoar RedCream Knowledge Index (RCKI) is very, very loa.
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,629
@453,558 (Cougar M )
> Have you followed Steinhardt and Turok's work?
I will drop my RedCream persona for this reply.
You are talking about the "ekpyrotic scenario". I mean, there's some basis for postulating it. Yes, it avoids the singularity of the Big Bang. But what does that really accomplish when you merely dodge the issue of origination (which itself dodges the issue of creation) by invoking causative agents which themselves are beyond the natural singularity that our universe seems to be? In other words, claiming our universe didn't begin as a singularity event, by saying it was caused by a collision of branes which themselves are outside our universe, is merely putting the issue of singularity at one point of removal. The problem remains there... outside our natural singularity, untestable as a hypothesis, and ultimately worthless as a line of inquiry.
For science to advance, you must make use of experiments and data, not flightly hand-waving in popularized books.
> Have you followed Steinhardt and Turok's work?
I will drop my RedCream persona for this reply.
You are talking about the "ekpyrotic scenario". I mean, there's some basis for postulating it. Yes, it avoids the singularity of the Big Bang. But what does that really accomplish when you merely dodge the issue of origination (which itself dodges the issue of creation) by invoking causative agents which themselves are beyond the natural singularity that our universe seems to be? In other words, claiming our universe didn't begin as a singularity event, by saying it was caused by a collision of branes which themselves are outside our universe, is merely putting the issue of singularity at one point of removal. The problem remains there... outside our natural singularity, untestable as a hypothesis, and ultimately worthless as a line of inquiry.
For science to advance, you must make use of experiments and data, not flightly hand-waving in popularized books.
+Anonymous O — 11.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,638
Why would a loving god make an OP with such a high level of homosexual desires?
·Anonymous F — 11.3 years ago, 16 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,641
@previous (O)
Christians always say,"god has a plan for you", well we know what god's plan for OP was...
Christians always say,"god has a plan for you", well we know what god's plan for OP was...
+Auntie Em — 11.3 years ago, 5 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #453,669
@453,629 (RedCream )
But it seems like some grasp at the singularity only because they have nothing else. For science to advance, one cannot grasp at a singularity and deem the end. One must consider logical alternatives to test as a way to progression (what you call "hand-waving"). Just because you don't fathom a testable hypothesis does not mean there is none. I think its worthy of further research.
And haven't we already gone beyond the thinking that our universe is within a singularity through quantum physics? I think the quest for origination goes way beyond one instance of singularity.
But it seems like some grasp at the singularity only because they have nothing else. For science to advance, one cannot grasp at a singularity and deem the end. One must consider logical alternatives to test as a way to progression (what you call "hand-waving"). Just because you don't fathom a testable hypothesis does not mean there is none. I think its worthy of further research.
And haven't we already gone beyond the thinking that our universe is within a singularity through quantum physics? I think the quest for origination goes way beyond one instance of singularity.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,683
I will drop my Doctor persona for this reply._____ _______ _____ _____ _____ _____
/\ \ /::\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \
/::\ \ /::::\ \ /::\____\ /::\ \ /::\ \ /::\ \
/::::\ \ /::::::\ \ /::::| | /::::\ \ /::::\ \ /::::\ \
/::::::\ \ /::::::::\ \ /:::::| | /::::::\ \ /::::::\ \ /::::::\ \
/:::/\:::\ \ /:::/~~\:::\ \ /::::::| | /:::/\:::\ \ /:::/\:::\ \ /:::/\:::\ \
/:::/__\:::\ \ /:::/ \:::\ \ /:::/|::| | /:::/__\:::\ \ /:::/__\:::\ \ /:::/__\:::\ \
/::::\ \:::\ \ /:::/ / \:::\ \ /:::/ |::| | /::::\ \:::\ \ /::::\ \:::\ \ \:::\ \:::\ \
/::::::\ \:::\ \ /:::/____/ \:::\____\ /:::/ |::| | _____ /::::::\ \:::\ \ /::::::\ \:::\ \ ___\:::\ \:::\ \
/:::/\:::\ \:::\ ___\ |:::| | |:::| | /:::/ |::| |/\ \ /:::/\:::\ \:::\ \ /:::/\:::\ \:::\____\ /\ \:::\ \:::\ \
/:::/__\:::\ \:::| ||:::|____| |:::| |/:: / |::| /::\____\/:::/__\:::\ \:::\____\/:::/ \:::\ \:::| |/::\ \:::\ \:::\____\
\:::\ \:::\ /:::|____| \:::\ \ /:::/ / \::/ /|::| /:::/ /\:::\ \:::\ \::/ /\::/ |::::\ /:::|____|\:::\ \:::\ \::/ /
\:::\ \:::\/:::/ / \:::\ \ /:::/ / \/____/ |::| /:::/ / \:::\ \:::\ \/____/ \/____|:::::\/:::/ / \:::\ \:::\ \/____/
\:::\ \::::::/ / \:::\ /:::/ / |::|/:::/ / \:::\ \:::\ \ |:::::::::/ / \:::\ \:::\ \
\:::\ \::::/ / \:::\__/:::/ / |::::::/ / \:::\ \:::\____\ |::|\::::/ / \:::\ \:::\____\
\:::\ /:::/ / \::::::::/ / |:::::/ / \:::\ \::/ / |::| \::/____/ \:::\ /:::/ /
\:::\/:::/ / \::::::/ / |::::/ / \:::\ \/____/ |::| ~| \:::\/:::/ /
\::::::/ / \::::/ / /:::/ / \:::\ \ |::| | \::::::/ /
\::::/ / \::/____/ /:::/ / \:::\____\ \::| | \::::/ /
\::/____/ ~~ \::/ / \::/ / \:| | \::/ /
~~ \/____/ \/____/ \|___| \/____/
·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 11.3 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,691
·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 11.3 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,697
·Cougar M — 11.3 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,698
+Anonymous Q — 11.3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,699
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,713
@453,669 (Auntie Em )
> But it seems like some grasp at the singularity only because they have nothing else. For science to advance, one cannot grasp at a singularity and deem the end.
Well, I have to say that that's a fair assessment. So we must rely on experiment... not math games, and not intrinsically untestable hypotheses. What experiment can be designed such that the environment outside our spacetime skein can be determined? I eagerly await your reply.
> And haven't we already gone beyond the thinking that our universe is within a singularity through quantum physics?
Not to my understanding. Quantum effects occur in our spacetime skein. Virtual particles might suggest extra-singularity origination, except there's no real way to prove that. VPs are the basement level of our reality. They happen in the real, but they occur because of the limits of perception as dictated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP). They are really just one and the same. And VPs are assuredly real... several careful atomic measurements become almost exact (meaning you get 4-6 more digits of precision out of them) when you figure in the effects of VPs on electron energy levels.
Perhaps I'm not grokking your jive. Can you explain in more detail how quantum effects reveal a testable multi-universe model?
> But it seems like some grasp at the singularity only because they have nothing else. For science to advance, one cannot grasp at a singularity and deem the end.
Well, I have to say that that's a fair assessment. So we must rely on experiment... not math games, and not intrinsically untestable hypotheses. What experiment can be designed such that the environment outside our spacetime skein can be determined? I eagerly await your reply.
> And haven't we already gone beyond the thinking that our universe is within a singularity through quantum physics?
Not to my understanding. Quantum effects occur in our spacetime skein. Virtual particles might suggest extra-singularity origination, except there's no real way to prove that. VPs are the basement level of our reality. They happen in the real, but they occur because of the limits of perception as dictated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP). They are really just one and the same. And VPs are assuredly real... several careful atomic measurements become almost exact (meaning you get 4-6 more digits of precision out of them) when you figure in the effects of VPs on electron energy levels.
Perhaps I'm not grokking your jive. Can you explain in more detail how quantum effects reveal a testable multi-universe model?
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,719
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,726
+Anonymous R — 11.3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,729
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,748
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,752
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
> Is this the RedCream persona or not?
You already admitted that you were confused. That is yoar roal. There is noa point in admitting a roal when the aim is to oaverturn that same roal.
A child could understand this. Yet you can not. What is yoar problem, exactly? There is a deeper roal foar you to admit.
> Is this the RedCream persona or not?
You already admitted that you were confused. That is yoar roal. There is noa point in admitting a roal when the aim is to oaverturn that same roal.
A child could understand this. Yet you can not. What is yoar problem, exactly? There is a deeper roal foar you to admit.
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,760
Plus, I might add, I want the doctoars fat coack in my cum filled throat. Come and roal play with me doctoar.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,762
·Anonymous H — 11.3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,763
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #453,777
@453,762 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
> Is this the RedCream persona or not?
Why do you ask questions that you already knoa the answers to?
> Is this the RedCream persona or not?
Why do you ask questions that you already knoa the answers to?
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.3 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #453,797
·Auntie Em — 11.3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #453,801
@453,713 (RedCream )
Thank you, your interest in the subject is a lot deeper than mine, so i respectfully decline for now. I found a lot of useful information but to take the time to put everything together (as well as get my mind around it, I am not a physicist) is time i don't have. I have a franknfurter mannequin to build.
I appreciate your posts though, thanks.
Thank you, your interest in the subject is a lot deeper than mine, so i respectfully decline for now. I found a lot of useful information but to take the time to put everything together (as well as get my mind around it, I am not a physicist) is time i don't have. I have a franknfurter mannequin to build.
I appreciate your posts though, thanks.
·Auntie Em — 11.3 years ago, 46 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #453,802
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #453,806
@453,797 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Can I suck your flaccid coack, and make it stiff in my moauth? I want you toa bloa yoar load in my throat.
Can I suck your flaccid coack, and make it stiff in my moauth? I want you toa bloa yoar load in my throat.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.3 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #453,840
·RedCream — 11.3 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #453,850
@453,801 (Auntie Em )
You are moast welcome, Auntie Em, although I quake with fear about what a "franknfurter mannequin" might possibly be. Still, it is not my place to judge about yoar proaclivities... as long as you admit yoar roal as a mannequin builder.
You are moast welcome, Auntie Em, although I quake with fear about what a "franknfurter mannequin" might possibly be. Still, it is not my place to judge about yoar proaclivities... as long as you admit yoar roal as a mannequin builder.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.