Who’s dogmatic?

I’ve talked about this a while back, and it’s talked about elsewhere on the blogosphere at great length and to great depth. However, it needs repeating, because among the rank and file of the droning God-worshippers out there, there’s still a certain perma-moderated reader that needs to understand the terms he’s using, as he’s wholly ignorant of the different axes on which atheism and agnosticism lie. He is also wholly unaware that both sides are capable of dogma, that those of us in this argument that specifically disbelieve in his Abrahamic god are not doing so dogmatically, and somehow thinks that his dogma is not in fact dogma but is rather scientific in itself. Video and more rant below the fold.

I am an agnostic atheist. I have said so a number of times, the earliest being here. That means that I know it’s impossible to disprove the merest possibility of a deity that started everything (if “started” even makes any sense — more on this when I get to my Big Bang post). Because it’s impossible to disprove a potential deity, I cannot gnostically claim that there is definitely no deity, no more than I can gnostically claim that there is definitely not a china teapot halfway between Earth and Mars, or that there is definitely not an invisible pink unicorn in this room (though this is a small room, it could be a likewise very small unicorn). Because I cannot say that these are definites, I cannot call myself an gnostic a-teapot-ist or gnostic a-unicorn-ist. Likewise, I cannot call myself an gnostic atheist, nor should you. The reason why I can’t call myself that? Dogma.

Dogma is when you say you know something, others are to also believe that thing, it is never to be questioned by anyone, and evidence to the contrary is to be thrown out without being examined. Since science itself is the process of studying reality, figuring things out about it, making predictions, and throwing out the predictions that turn out to be wrong, one cannot call science dogmatic as it is expected that every hypothesis in science be questioned until the law of diminishing returns kicks in and someone says, okay, you’ve questioned it so much and have done no damage to the hypothesis, that maybe it should now graduate to a theory.

When enough people get together and say “yup, still no damage”, then the greater scientific community accepts it and uses it as foundational to other fields, fields that would collapse or end up being wholly incorrect and make wildly inaccurate predictions if the graduated theories were wrongly promoted. As the theory of evolution has resulted in the entire field of genetics and is propped itself up by archaeology and geology and plate tectonics, and it all fits together in such a nice neat little way with very few gaps remaining, we’re squeezing out room for the Abrahamic Yahweh that willed the world into being and created each creature ex nihilo.

Meanwhile, those of us who say there is probably no god, do so because the probability of it is extremely low. At least, the probability of any particular god that has any sort of meaning in this universe — interventionist, voyeur, supreme moral being, or cosmic stoner who dreamed up the platypus while smoking some good reefer — all of these are extremely unlikely. The probability of a god that exists outside the scope of the universe, that knows nothing about the universe, that exists in some other dimensions on some other plane of existence, or some other brane, ehhh… not enough info to form real probabilities here.

Therefore, we leave that door open a tiny crack. God, whatever it might be, can only exist there, and there, is outside our universe and means absolutely nothing to us because it’s outside of our universe. He/she/it/they can’t have any effect on us, and probably doesn’t even know about our existence, much less is going to judge us individually and send us to eternal bliss or eternal torment. And frankly, the existence of any such Abrahamic god would trivialize this universe, of which we are a part — as we are made of star-stuff, and we are here to observe this universe.

Meanwhile, those that believe in the Abrahamic god believe this universe is tiny, mostly fake, and entirely created for humans’ benefit. And they do so because a really old book said so, and that really old book convinced some really old people, who taught this same book to their kids, and to their kids, etcetera, so on, and so forth, for ages.

That’s right, Zdenny. Your belief in the god of the Bible is dogmatic, because it is based on a foundational idea that must never be questioned, much less put to any sort of test or forced to make predictions. So when you say things like:

As a Christian I can look at the popular theories and think they are a possibility; however, if they do not align with the Scripture we have to keep on moving forward since we haven’t put the puzzle properly together yet.

That means you’re being dogmatic. Closed-minded. You’re ignoring any evidence that works against your chosen “theory” (and I use this term differently here than the scientific meaning), and only looking for those parts of science that don’t directly conflict with scripture.

So, I have to say, once again, to Zdenny specifically and to all gnostic theists generally that think “intelligent design” is actually science: Fuck you very much for trying to co-opt the best parts of science, kidnapping the scientific method and dressing it up like Princess Leia to your god’s Jabba the Hutt. You can’t do that because you don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism, you don’t know what gnosticism is even though you’re an gnostic theist yourself, and you use the word dogma without really understanding that it describes perfectly your arrogant assertions that any knowledge that does not conform to scripture must therefore be incorrect.

You no more know for certain that your God exists, than you know for certain that Thor or Zeus or some deity that gives not a shit for thee, doesn’t. Period.

God damned gnostics. Every one of ’em can go to hell.

Who’s dogmatic?
The Bolingbrook Babbler:  The unbelievable truth is now at freethoughtblogs.com/babbler

16 thoughts on “Who’s dogmatic?

  1. 1

    He refuses to concede that his definitions are not correct. It’s pointless. He’s pointless. He’s not completely useless, as he can always serve as a bad example, but is it really worth it? I’d say not for him, but for others who might be swayed by seeing what an utter fool he is: that’s priceless.

  2. 3

    Dear Jason,

    If you accepted the scientific method, you would be a Christian because the resurrection has been confirmed scientifically. Christianity is not dogma, it is based on a scientific fact that has been confirmed by many witnesses in several independent contexts. The findings were then confirmed by indpendent investigators who were contempories of the eye witnesses.

    The fact that the puzzle is not complete seems to bother you. You don’t want to complete the puzzle because you may discover that the universe was created. I consider this closed minded, dogmatic and certainly closes your mind to where the evidence may lead. You have reached a conclusion prior to all the facts being discovered holding to unjustified assumptions that have not been demonstrated by the scientific method.

    Christians have lead the field in science of years. In fact, it was an evangelical who first map the Genome. Christians just love science; however, we don’t have to build our life on an process of discovery. Science is a puzzle that is being put together with the scientific method. It is more like a thing to work with than worship. As a Christian I find it so hard to believe that you believe worshipping science which is merely a process of discovery. It is an indirect form of idolatry. You think science supports agnostic atheism; however, science doesn’t support a worldview, it merely describes how the world works.

    Your prescriptive view of reality comes from a hedonism which helps you decide what you ought to do.

    As I told Dan, some pieces of the puzzle are forced and you are clearly forcing pieces and ignoring pieces in order to maintain your belief in man being the ultimate measure of all things. The human mind is clearly designed being really the ultimate design in the universe that we know of; however, you write it off due to your commitment to dogmatic naturalism.

    In all honesty, it is not a science thing because Christians love science. I just think you have a strain of hedonism in your blood that God will eventually bleed out of you. Selfish indulgence will result in depression and unhappiness which most likely is the source of your mild anger towards people like me. A life of love will really transform your life and its exactly what you need…

    You were designed for relationship by God and the most important relationship you have is your relationship with God. You were made you for that purpose.

    I love watching your blog as I love watching how your thoughts are being molded and developing! Keep up the progress…

  3. 4

    By the way, the girl in the video doesn’t know what she is talking about. Agnostism is a belief system that says one does not know if a deity exists. Atheism says there is no deity. Theism affirms a deity. The weak and strong form of agnosticism is between those who are dogmatist and those who are open-minded agnostics being open to a belief in God.

  4. 5

    I approved both of these because you’re just plain laughable. We tell you what definitions you should be using as per the dictionary, and show you that by using the words correctly your argument falls apart; and in response, you tell us we’re all wrong and you and you alone are right. I can’t even rebut these properly right now, as I have to go be hedonistic and get some groceries now. Hedonistically.

    Anyway, I don’t think science supports any theistic or atheistic worldview. I just think that the DEFAULT worldview should be agnostic atheism because NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND TO SWING THAT DEFAULT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. Well, no evidence except for your Bible, which proves that someone wrote a book once.

    You fucking tool.

  5. 6

    If you accepted the scientific method, you would be a Christian because the resurrection has been confirmed scientifically.

    No matter how many times I read this, it’s still one of the most assinine, idiotic, brainless statements I’ve ever read. Come on, zdenny, what empirical evidence do you have that your Jesus figure ever even existed in the first place?

    You’re right, Jason, it is laughable. It’s pathetic, too.

  6. 7

    only looking for those parts of science that don’t directly conflict with scripture.

    Actually, that becomes a motivation to keep on doing science. A Christian is humble enough to know that we are in the process of discovery. Science only gives us degrees of probability. It does not give us certainly. For example, the big bang used to be considered impossible by atheist and even laughable; however, everyone who looks at the evidence cannot escape that something came from an infinite source.

  7. 8

    Jason said, “I am an agnostic atheist”

    Actually, this is a contradiction. An atheist is one who saids there is no deity which is the same as affirming that God does not exist. An agnostic is one who does not know if God exists or not. Agnostic is the same as saying that they are ignorant. If you want to put agnostic and atheist together, you end up with an ignorant atheist. I am not sure you really want that label.

    Keep on thinking Jason….you are getting closer…

  8. 9

    Sorry Zdenny, but you’re either blind or deluded. Here are the terms that you keep telling everyone that they’re wrong about.

    Theism: belief in deities, no matter which ones.
    Atheism: lack of belief in deities, no matter which ones.
    Gnosticism: belief that the possibility of a deity can be known for certain, or sometimes, the claim that one does know of the existence or non-existence of any particular deity.
    Agnosticism: belief that the possibility of a deity cannot be known for certain, no matter which deity.
    Dogma: the wholehearted, arrogant belief in a foundational text, disregarding any evidence to the contrary.

    You’re not allowed to say “you’re wrong about these definitions”, because I’m not. You are. And I have many dictionaries that prove it. What do you have outside your bible and the dogma that’s been drilled into your head?

    You’re right about one thing though: I am far, far closer to reality than you are. Keep on questioning your own beliefs Zdenny, you’ll come around to reason eventually. Oh, wait, you’ve never questioned your own beliefs… you’re so thoroughly bathed in the Dunning-Kruger effect that you’ll never pull yourself out of the quagmire. You “bought” Christianity hook, line and sinker; and every single piece of logic you’ve ever chewed over is shaped in such a way that you’ll never question your foundational fallacies, because that would be either too much effort or too much cognitive dissonance. This is why you try to resolve the problem of science having provable results by trying to say science proves Christianity, or that Christianity is responsible for science. You need to, because otherwise your entire belief system crumbles.

    I hope one day you have a crisis of faith, realize just how much of a complete and total ass you have been to everyone around you, and apologize sincerely for putting us through so much grief. I don’t hold a lot of hope that this will ever happen, though. If you ever want to learn how reality actually works, come talk to me. Don’t come talk to me under any circumstance promoting your horrifically unlikely god ever again, though. If your god exists, I’m already damned, whether I accept him or not, so it’s a useless proposition.

  9. 10

    I find it interesting that you propose those definitions because “a” means “no” and ‘gnostism’ means knowledge. An agostnic is one who has no knowledge literally. It is the same word as ignorant.

    I find it interesting that you would want to be called an ignorant atheist. I think that actually explains alot…

    If I were you, I would start being open minded. Science only deals in the realm of probable. When you state that science determines absolute truth you are showing how dogmatic atheist can be.

    Science is open to correction at all times. Even some of our basic proofs may turn out to need correction is due time.

    I find it interesting that you think that science proves evolution. Evolution is not an absolute truth since science does not deal in absolutes and only probabilities.

    As I stated, Christians are much more open-minded about science than atheist because our life is not built on a process. We have greater freedom to play with the puzzle rather than trying to worship the puzzle.

    The next big discovery in science is going to be that dark energy is causing our universe to expand. Dark energy is literally pulling our universe apart because it travels faster than the speed of light. Light and matter are like bobs in the sea of dark matter floating through space while being apart by space itself.

    When science discovers this to be true, I suspect you will want to become a Christian then because the Christian faith as well as the possibility of six days of creation will have been proven.

  10. 11

    You’re right, Dan. It is pointless. We’ve given him the correct definitions and time and again he misinterprets them so that he can make some petty insult like “agnostic means ignorant”. Never mind that agnosticism is, as defined above, the belief that it’s impossible to know about the existence of a god or gods, rather than simply being a person who lacks any knowledge at all of anything. No, when I went to look that last one up, all I found was Zdenny.

    Why do you keep going to dark energy? Seriously? Dark energy is dark matter. Dark matter is hypothesized to explain some issues we have presently with our current understanding of Big Bang cosmology. If you deny the Big Bang, you don’t have to bother with dark matter, because science only postulated it as a prediction of Big Bang theory, meaning if they discover dark matter, they will have confirmed the Big Bang theory. If it’s never discovered, or disproven, then we’ll likely have to figure out some alternate explanation for the universe’s current observed expansion.

    And guess why? Because science is not dogmatic, and is open to new ideas. Religion is not. If ever they discover dark matter, you’ll take it as some kind of proof that your crazy ideas about creation are definitely true, even though it was a) predicted by science as an extension of the Big Bang theory, b) confirmed by science that went looking for it to confirm the Big Bang theory, and c) evidence for the Big Bang theory and against your god’s creation myth. You keep going back to this flawed premise of the six-day creation as made up by a bronze-age Middle Eastern tribe. Why do you believe, seriously, that Palestinians two thousand years ago knew more about this universe than we do? Why don’t you, say, believe in Mithra or Krishna instead of Jesus and Yahweh?

    You’re undermining your own belief system in trying to hypothesize these weird “proofs of creation” that you think might come to pass. What’s worse, you don’t even realize it, and likely never will.

    Science, you see, is the study of reality. Evolution is a reality, accepted by everyone who has looked at reality objectively without preconceived notions as impressed on them by some religion or another. This is why you lose, and this is why science leads people to the inescapable conclusion that evolution is how life’s diversity has come to be. I’m more than well aware science can’t “prove” anything (that’s math’s domain!), all science can do is get us as close to understanding the true nature of how things actually are. Science is hated by your fellow religious people as much as it is because it hurts your belief systems.

    It takes a great act of will and ignorance (as seen on your part every damn day!) to try to say that science proves Christianity to be true, Jesus’s resurrection, and six-day creation as plausible, but that evolution didn’t happen. Find me a secular scientist has absolutely no religious ties or no attempts to win the Templeton prize, that disbelieves in evolution, and maybe, JUST MAYBE, they might even have something. If they have evidence to back up their assertions, that is.

    Or you could just shut the fuck up and stop commenting on this goddamn blog, we go our separate ways, and you never bother me or my friends ever, ever again.

  11. 12

    Why is it that I get the impression that if zdenny keeps notes in a real notebook, it would look something like this:

    W̲̠͎͑̐̽͌͐ͣ̓h͚̙̺̼̹ͅẽ̇̆n͐͋̉ͯ̌̆̋ ̩̦̠͖̜̈ͥ̿ͯ̄̀̚sc̊ͪ́͛̌iͦ̈ͣe̗͈̟̯̋̅n̫͓̩̘̹̟̤̑c̱̹̗̥ͫe͈̼ ̭̜̣d̮̤̘̪͙͉̒̀ì̼̳̤̘̯͉̱̍͗̆͒͐ͨs̮̥̣͚̼͋͗̌̏̃̔̋c̤̬o͎̦̟̟͚̱̪̎̇̔ͩ̇ͮ́v͓̯͎̙͋̅ͧe̱ͫͥͩ̈̎̚̚r̠̯̖̥̱̒̅͑ś̽͆̓ ̖̤̜̣͍̐̋̊̔ͦ̿t̉̿̔̿ẖ͉̹͇̠̫̆̄͋ͪͫ̃ͅi̜̹̬͛̅s̬̣͎̩̖̙̐̈́́ͅ ̈ẗ̟́o̯̖̖̗̼ ̳́͂b͉̯̳̪̜ͣ̒̄ë̻̠́̑͑̔ͦ̀̈́ ͚͇̥̀t̠̝̜͈̯̻̂r̓̇̔͆̄̐̅u̫̜̣ͣ̄̇͂ͅe̮̗͇̝̥͇̫͛,̙̫ͣ̒̃̇͂̌ ̜̺̰͕̤Ȋ̝̺̱̺̙͙ ̤̜ͪͅs̭ủ̠̺̭͉͕̟̈̆s͕̲͚̬̼͇̳̄͒̃̊p͇̖͉͑ͭe̠ͯ̓̍ͦ̽ͫc͉̜͓̭̫̜t̪̞͓ ̙̤̖̪̥ͅͅỷ́̎̿̍o͇̤͈͉̩͌ͨű̺̰͔̳̟͖̓̀ ͙̖̫ͯ̿̈́ͭw̰̯͇ͥͩͦ̿̓̅̃i̬͔͓̗̝͕͒l̼̦ͮ̂̋͊̂ͨ̈́l̻̻̤͓ͣ ͈̥̭͎͍͕̬̒͂̃̋̽ẘ̗̇͆͑̊ả̮̇̚n̙̰̬͍̮̩̞̾̆͐̎͊t̥̤̎̊̑̈ͭ̚ ̘̮̬̜ͤͪ́̿t͓͙̪͚̳̯o̟̯͎͈ͣ́ͪ ̹͖̌̅̅ͣ̃̀̆ͅḅ̮̊̑̅̄ͩ͗̚e͇ͮ̿̊̓c̩̳͙̺̝͎̖̓ͥ͛̓́ͯ̓o̘ͥͮm̆͒̓̽ë͙̼͉̪͈͖͔ ̱̹̯̗͕̙͈̎͛ͯḁ̰̑̒ͪ̍ ̪͖͛ͥͦ̅ͬͪC͔̜̫͆͛h̻̬̻̙͚̠̗ͨ͌̃r̘̤̜̞͓̻ͥ̂̓̆i͉̲̬̗̭͔s̹͇ͤͯt̼͎̓̂̈́͛ͅͅi͔̮̱̐̍̀̔̊å̩̹͓͙̘͌̓n̻̿̄͌ͧͬͮ ͑ͪ̋t̥͛ȟ͖̘̼͓͛̓̂ͨ̅e̩̔̚n͖̻͈ͯ̎͊̑̎ ̩͍̥̫bͧe̦̹̽͐͗c͍͍̤͐ͭ͛ͬ̆ͩaͬ̄͊͑̄̑ű̹̜͎̺̥̝̥̊ͨ̒̎͒̚s̜̳͍ͬ̐͌̎ͥ̇ë̠̭̻̯̾̚ ͍̳̺̖̆̐͒̀̽̋̒t̂̓h̟̥̘ͤͣ͗̓ͭ͂ê͑̈́ ̯͇̘̭ͣ͒̒ͪ̒C̜̻̽̌̈ͅḧ̩̦̮̫̟̭̖̐̂r̩̯̦͌ͩͥͮḯ̗̜̭̻͋ͥ̎̚s̬̺̮ͪ̽ť͓͇̣̺̟̳̠̃̂i͎̮͕ͯḁ̭̋̇͛ͫͫn̯̤͇̟̝͕̼̒̐͗̐̽̈́ ͯ̑͊̆f͉̖̣̭̞a̮̯̯̩ͮí̥̹̰̳͖ͤͯ̓͌t͎̽ͬ̑̿ͪh͍̝͎̗ͩ͑͂̋̄̋̉ ͈̰ͦ̋ͦͣ̾̈́̏a̮̱͍̓s̳͓͙͍̬͗ ̲̟ͮ̾ͬͧͧͮͧͅẃ̭͊̈ͨ͂͗̄ė͎̝lͥ͛̇ͩ̈́l̳̟̘͍̣̯͑́̋͐ ̺͇ͪ͌̃ḁ̰̬͈̥̆̾̃̇ͯͯṣ̩̥̯̯ͫ̓ ̔ͯt͔̙̰̆͒̀̏ͨḥ̟̰̺̤͔̘e͎͓͈͙͆̐̆ ̣ͭͥ͐̚p̙͌̏o̖̖͓͈͇ͥs̤͉̝͇̩͒̇̒ͫ̄s̱͛͗̈́̚î͈ͬ̂͗b͙͓͙͕̫̥̖̌̅i̩̖̮l͉̾͂̔̍i̱͓̳̯ͫ̓̽t̜͍ͫ́ͫ̇̊y̰ ͐̈́̌ͪ̚õ̼͍̞̳͖̭͐ͦ͛̈ͨf̄̐ͬ̀̊̿͐ ͈̺͓̲̤͌̂s̘̗̋ͧ̍̃͛ͨ͂i̻̪͉̰ͬ́ͯ̔͗̍ͅx͍̃ ̫̻̳̹͐̿ͦͫ͊ͅdͪ͐ͅa̲͖ͬ͛ͅẏ͚͓̏̉̈́ͅs̠̣̻͓͎͎̀̃̊̑̆ ͓̺̪͂̌̎o͍̘̟ͮ͆̽̊ͤf̞̙͑ͤ̏͋ ͇̮̦̲̘̊̔c͎r̤͙͎̂̚e͍̪̟̰̅̍̇ͨ͐̊ͥͅaṫ͌ͬ̃͛̄i̖̔ȯ̰̭̥̖̯̗̲ͥ̚n̥̾ͦͨ̽ ͐ͧ͑̇̍w̥͑̿ͫ̒ĭ̺͔͖͇̰͒͌̍l̘͙̞̣̗̩ͅl̲̖̱̫͚̺ͨͦ͛̂͐ͮ ̺̭̔̅h̹̳͉͉̤̹͒a̲͙͕̪̘̫ͬ̈́̎v̈́̈́̂́ͩ̋e̱̹͍ͅ ̜͈̜͙b̜͎̰͖͖̫̝e͚̜̫̟͊͂̈́͑̿ė̩ͯ̈́͗̅n̥̳͚̖̒̈̚ ̬̼͓̥̲͎̞͂ͨ̇ͭ͗p̥͓͓ͅr̙̮͔̖̉̍ͮ͑̀o̍̐vͨͫ̒̔̀̉e̘̯̗̜̽̑n̮͙͔̭͍̫ͣ͆ͭ̉ͪ͆.͈̚

  12. 13

    Zdenny posted again. He insulted me once, called three well established pieces of science “unconfirmed”, made a prediction based on unconfirmed science and called it a “fact”, and made several more specious claims. However, he did correct me on something — there probably exists both dark matter and dark energy in the universe (both of which are unconfirmed however, though Zdenny seems to think they definitely exist and definitely come from God). They are different and distinct things, but they both have something to do with the Big Bang and are both speculated to exist in order to explain some gaps in our understanding of the cosmology.

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010104a.html :

    Dark Energy appears to be, based on the brightness of the most distant type-Ia supernovae, a mysterious force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe. These recent discoveries have provided good evidence that there is such an outward force on the universe (variously called the cosmological constant, “quintessence,” or “dark energy”).

    Data about the rotation of galaxies shows us that the outer parts rotate as fast as the inner parts. This only makes sense if there is a spherical distribution of matter in each galaxy, which is not what we see. Therefore we infer that there is a certain amount of Dark Matter in each galaxy. This could be some exotic particles, or just lots of stars too small to have ignited.

    Aside from this, there is also the Dark Matter that we think is there, based on theoretical arguments. This is something we can measure by looking at the cosmic microwave background and distant supernovae. These are the measurements (recently made) that imply the existence of both Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

    He thinks that since dark energy may be doing the expansion acceleration, that dark energy must equal God.

    And because of the insult he made (specificially: “If you think outside of the box for a moment and I know this may be hard for you”), I’m not letting it out of moderation because I’m petty and vindictive. Sort of like the Yahweh of the Bible.

  13. 14

    This may be pointless, since Zdenny seems immune to people pointing out the factual errors in his drivel, but assuming the the “evangelical” who “first map [sic] the human Genome” is Francis Collins, the claim is incorrect on two counts. Number one, Craig Venter and Celera completed the sequencing of the human genome before the Human Genome Project. And second of all, Francis Collins was only the administrator of the Human Genome Project. A huge number of universities and researchers were involved in the HGP, to give Collins sole credit would be borderline criminal.

  14. 15

    Shit hell damn. I was totally going to post this quote from Venter as my response about that line, without attributing it, to see if Zdenny could figure out who it was that actually mapped the genome first and what that person’s religious inclinations were (with the strikethrough omitted naturally):

    “I think from my experience in war and life and science, it all has made me believe that we have one life on this planet,” genomics pioneer J. Craig Venter, who was drafted into the Vietnam War, tells the San Francisco Chronicle. “We have one chance to live it and to contribute to the future of society and the future of life. The only ‘afterlife’ is what other people remember of you.”

    …Only I got so distracted by his other arguments I totally forgot to actually add it. That makes me sad.

    And yeah, in the long run, telling him he’s wrong doesn’t make a lick of difference — he *may* alter his future arguments, but the very fact that he was wrong to begin with will neither be acknowledged nor internalized. Ever. 99% chance he’d just say “NO U’RE WRONG” and repeat his original argument.

  15. 16

    Oh, and one neat thing about science is that thanks to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (“It’s just a theory!!!”), we know that matter and energy are interchangeable. Energy can become matter and matter can become energy. Neither can be destroyed or created ex nihilo, suggesting that this universe has probably always existed, with all the matter in the universe compressed to a quantum foam prior to the big bang (if prior makes any sense, which it doesn’t — that first 10-43rd of a second prior to the first unit of Planck time wherein our physics still make sense, may well have lasted for an infinity before anything changed about it.

    I really oughtta get around to posting about the Big Bang sooner rather than later. This won’t stop Pet Troll from fundamentally misinterpreting everything about it just to find some gap to shoehorn Yahweh into.

Comments are closed.