Why aren't religious people more interested in cosmology?

You're going to have to qualify that. Opinion, dime-a-baker's-dozen here, doesn't count for much.

Go suck Muad's cock.

Accepting that the big bang occured is a very different thing to being interested in learning about it.

Oh...then you must have a poll supporting your belief that most believers aren't interested, don't you, Rick? A case study?

Leaked emails?

Anything?

Yeah, you've got nothing.

Given that a large proportion of believers (in the US at least) accept the creationist account of how the world formed, I think we can infer that they aren't especially interested in what happened 18 billion years before that.

Okay, so, at best, Jamey simply misused "garden variety".

But, there isn't a quark of goodness in him, so I won't be giving him that benefit of a doubt.

Or any others.
Ever.
Until we're all dead.

See? Nothing but wickedness.

Something about this poster seems just a bit half-baked.

I don't think he misused it at all. There are more good hearted, well meaning, intelligent religious people than there are reactionary religious extremists. If it were not the case, then, my dear boy, you'd be learning about how Noah survived the Great Flood in your history books.

Did I ever say otherwise?

Yes. Many times. That's the kind of question you really shouldn't ask.

I'll stand by anything here, or on the blog, with my head held high.


Whatever lies you whisper in your little hidden opium dens doesn't interest me, and I can only feel genuine pity for whomever listens to them.

Toss up a link.

Toss up a link.

Oh, come now, don't play the link game, Dicky. You've been here far too long for that kind of thing. Everyone here knows you. They know what you've said, they know how you feel about it. You want me to condense six years of posts, on a message that you haven't changed, into a handful that you can disregard.

So here:

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2024116&postcount=9

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2020260&postcount=89

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=1995340&postcount=80

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=1992501&postcount=80

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=1990850&postcount=159

There's a couple, and I only went back six months, not six years.

1. There AREN'T Christian preachers that blamed natural disasters on gays/"sexual immorality"? 'Fraid you're mistaken there. Falwell springs immediately to mind.

2. Nowhere do I call all Christian extremists.

3. Good question I asked there, never got an answer.

4. The ten commandment aren't constructed that way? There IS an anti-rape commandment?
The Old Testamnet doesn't lump women in with property?
Advocate the stoning of disobedient children, and adulterers?
Fraid it does.
Truly a warped morality.
Good thing kind-hearted Christians don't follow that stuff.
It'd be all kinds of fucked up.

5. What's the problem there? Nothing at all to do with Christian being fanatics. In fact, quite the exact opposite.


T'ain't there, John.
For me to be a monster, or even a respectible asshole, you'll have to do way better.

See? You just disregard your comments and carry on. This is what I expected. I like you Dicky, but like all human beings, you have a blind spot, and it's your frequent inability to see yourself outside your current frame of mind.

I haven't begun to beat my wife.

I beat off to all of your wives.

It's neither, I asked clear outright unmistakable questions I'd appreciate some answers to.

Take a crack at 'em.

Where's the wickedness?
Where's the calling all Christians stupid, or fanatical?
Where is it?
The words aren't there.
The intent isn't there.
Is it a "feeling", I give off?
In text?

Come on, help me out here.

just pointing out that they were hardly ignorant... despite belief in such things like underpants gnomes.

Well, yes, they were ignorant.
About the nature of the universe.
They lacked certain knowledge, so, they were ignorant.
It wasn't their fault, that's just the way it was.
Didn't mean it in the prejorative sense.
Simmer down.

No. I won't help you out here. You're not a willing student, and you don't need the help. Your questions are time sinks, that's all they are, because no matter what I say, how I explain it, you're just not going to accept it. You will always make for yourself another reason to brush it off.

As I said before, I knew this is what you would do. If I'd have posted 20 of your responses, you'd want answers to all 20 of them. 50? You'd want answers to 50 of them. It's called "burying it in paperwork". Whether you get one sentence or a hundred sentences for each question, it will simply not be to your satisfaction. Your standards are unrealistic and purely academic. You don't have to put in any effort, and you make everyone else do all the legwork. You could do it all day and not break a sweat, and I find that to be intellectually dishonest.

Or, John, maybe, quite possibly, you're wrong?

Ah...
so can you tell me for certain the cause of the "Big Bang" (Presuming we can both agree on what to call an event from a few trillion years ago)?
you've exhausted all enquiry into the nature of existence and have an answer better than "it's quantum physics, man..."

?
Couple of millenia past, man looked up and thought the universe was the work of gods and giants. Now we call it a bunch of quasi intelligent particles that attract, react, and interact with each other. I'm honestly curious as to what the difference is besides replacing Kashyyk with Endor? It's still a bunch of furry critters in a forest.

That's not what ignorance is, you dope.

The difference is that the former system was make-believe, while the latter actually happened - and the same principle by which we know that makes all our technology go.

Although I'm not sure what you mean by "quasi-intelligent particles".

Then what is it?

...yeah, sounds like some Deepak chopra shit.

Turk, go get "Quantum Gods", by Victor Stengar, he actually knows his quantum mechanics, and there's no room for pseudo-spiritual woo in any of it.