History 2D: Science, Magic, and Religion, Lecture 1, UCLA

[stoneis50]

fuck ..!! she looks hot ..and awesome bulbous tits ! i just wanna get into this university and get laid with her !!!

[verdantique]

Hey everyone, here's the UCLA course page for this class, History 2D (and some other history courses.) The course page contains syllabuses, readings, and other course information.

h t t p : / / w w w . s s c n e t . u c l a . e d u / c l a s s e s / p r o f b y l i d . p h p ? l i d = 1 3 7 0

Please up vote so people can find this link if they're looking.

[Weirdochris]

Watch Out Lady!!!! Your water bottle is really a Decepticon!!!!

[henceseventytwo]

I am so glad that eyeearbrain.webs.com sent me here. Best lecture ever!

[Kri4im]

Very good lecture A*

Passion, professionalism and content wise, as a student at the moment i say A*.

Never mind that i study Computer Networking course.

[GibbonJabber]

While Raia may come off as a New Age flake to some, remember that she may in part be pandering to teenagers from LA (a rather flakey region) maybe so theyt stick out the course and maybe learn something. If you look up the syllabus for 2D, it is impressive in its coverage of material that college students should be aware of.

In her brief discussion here of "magic in the US" I'm surprised she didn't mention advertising for products that imply they will make you attractive, popular, or happy .

[OriginalCliche101]

How not to film a lecture.

[Ghost202587]

DECEPTACONS!!!



[ClandestineAtheist]

Does anyone know the textbook title and author for this course?

[rafnezden1968]

Come on people,

She is a young professor talking to young people.

She is also attractive.

I say yes to prayer

I say yes to meditation

I say yes to the Universe

I say yes to Magic

And I say yes to Ayahuasca, DMT

Don't forget quantum entanglement

Ps: science = physics and algebra

[JayHouseAddict]

i read RELGION

[KarlHeinzofWpg]

Corny gibberish attempting to acquire a cloak of academic legitimacy. Come on UCLA....I mean, really?

P.S. - @ 5:40 - Missing an "i" in "relgion".

Nitpicking? Sure. But it's emblematic of her entire lecture which is trying to say something important and useful, but comes across as one giant misspelt word. Her approach isn't investigative, or explanatory. It's nostalgic.

[nguyen2]

@KarlHeinzofWpg but that is why it's so fun to watch this. nostalgic, playful, poetic, and yes magical. so interesting to look at science, religion, and 'magic' as different systems people have chosen to use to understand the world. i would not even consider the lecture series as anti-science, if anything i find it to be more of a critique on religion.

[KarlHeinzofWpg]

@nguyen2 - Fun to watch, nostalgic, playful, poetic. Yes, it's definitely infotainment. If she added insight, accuracy and explanatory power, than it would be education.

[OutOfTheBoxThinker]

Interesting topic, but boring and superficial lecture that doesn't deal with the very essense very well, which is human inability to comprehend, understand and/or analyse they own perception and their tendency to impose assumptions over facts for emotional reasons.

[Aggrestor]

Offensive? I guess it offends people who think humans always experienced religion in the same way.

[ginsushark]

I think I spotted this prof at a local LA pet store. Strange to see "TV" people in real life. Her pet dog is SUPER CUTE.

[mielazul]

Rosetta West - Morning Star

[hepkatt66]

That is Sandra Bullock. Jesse James is in the audience trying to use magic spells to get her back, but it is not working

[XandeZouk]

Science being about the natural world and science being naturalistic are two completely different things. Science don't have means for detecting anything outside the natural world. One point is to research what science is able to research. Another thing is saying that what you research is all there is.

[soerism]

oh my god, her bottle is decepticon....

[MacBizzo]

SOMETHING HERE IS MISSING: Define Magic in the mythology of non-fiction vs. fiction... there is a division of how to achieve supernatural in the natural. These are defined as magic ( both priest & wizard { ie science & religion} & psionics ) A Priest "prays" for their spells, A Wizard uses verbal, somantic and material items for their spells. A Psionic Master uses "chi" and the force of mental willpower.

Here we have 3 ways to achieve the same result making the 3 simply singular.

[skatekaws]

Religion is based in belief...... And science is to prove what you believe!!!

[IheartPizzi]

@calabisimal.  That's what I was thinking!

[Peurii]

Is prayer magic? With her definitions I'd say it is.

[slonamu]

Eight civil engeneirs did not like thisw video.

[witchonewitch]

shes left handed and shes not , 6 monts ago . . . hee hee hee  . . .

[witchonewitch]

well now isnt this interesting , that is , is this not interesting ? ? ? im only half way through the fisrt clip on this magic , opps i mean science opps , i mean religion opps i mean well you know , right ? ? ? the best thing i could ever say about this is that i know everything shes teaching , that is , i understand what shes getting at and as far as im concerned my strongest gift is the gift of knoledge , did i SPELL that right ? ? ? Whatever ronteeples@yahoo.com

[rufus39]

alternative mental constructs are healthy, blessed be

[MrMeemz]

is she sarah palin ;-) ???

[undsoft]

Don't look to the camera. This freaks me out.

[dirkschuitsma]

@Omnicron777

Most girls that are cute dont need to take the effort to gain knowledge, cause they'll gain enough reward for their cuteness alone. And maybe that knowledge might even turn them into nerds, which might make them fearful of becoming less attractive to guys.. But often its just laziness..:)

[UVBluesman]

What happened to the other two groups in the open heart surgery/prayer study? The group that knew they were being prayed for had more complications, but what were the results in the other two groups? And before both sides of the isle start slamming me, it's just a question.

[sebastianthomson]

Her definitions at the beginning are completely off.

1) Science is NOT a body of knowledge, it is a method uniting observation and testable theories

2) Religion most certainly does attempt to include nature in its sphere of influence.

[thecritiqu]

@sebastianthomson aumun to that!

[mackles]

54:02

[mackles]

Oh man. One of the best religion/nature lecture I've seen! But, at 5:26, religion is misspelled...I HAD to point it out!!!

[oscarweird]

She needs to sort out her notes.

[immak4u]

i love the way she is fooling the class :D

[fireserpent26]

She resembles Sandra Bullock.

[immak4u]

@fireserpent26 she is better than sandra bullock. more intelligent and cuter :P

[gregcro55]

this is ridiculously retarded. I can't believe UCLA would put this on internet.

[juden420]

At 53ish mins she basically says do drugs lol. we have access to magic ! J/K

[gAPEdify]

she a despticon, lol.. god is everything. so lables cant hold him to oppion.

[Neueregel]

Religions are Fairytales for adults. Trust only Science folks!! Science is what progresses and advances humanity.

[GaraidhS]

@Neueregel Trust yourself, the institutionalized scientists can be and often are influenced by personal and political beliefs, the need to provide results in line with the establishment in order to secure future funding, etc.. Blindly believing in "science" is just another religion.

[Neueregel]

@GaraidhS "Trust yourself" ???? Are you kidding me? We are just high primates born with Blank Slate minds. We havfe to Trust the SCIENTIFIC METHOD otherwise we're back in the Dark Ages believing in "Opinions" and everyone's mumbo jumbo crap.

[GaraidhS]

@Neueregel The problem is that ~many~ institutional scientists don't follow the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD". They practice voodoo that will give them the results they want and marginalize anything that doesn't fit their personal agenda. I never said not to trust the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" I said not to blindly trust what you're told by the scientific establishment "high priests". My point is that people need to be careful that they don't replace the old religions with a new one.

[AR333]

Religion inter-relates the two worlds as well...

[sled1950]

so when did Sandra Bullock start lecturing at UCLA? Hahaha. j/k this is a great lecture

[EJNewbury]

@sled1950 I have to agree, she is cute. And if she reads this on a wimb, you're welcome.

[mk3nog]

@sled1950 yeah....shes so sexy

[calabisaful]

@sled1950 She really does look like Sandra Bullock.

[Coffeeisnecessary]

@sled1950 LOL I Luv Professor Bullock!! <3

[DreamsofMajesty]

scribd (dot) com/nb812

[demystik]

Excellent lecture! Clear, fair, lucid, and eminently accessible to people who are just beginning to explore the complex history of human consciousness! I can't wait to watch the remaining lectures :)

[sholio]

I'm sorry.. 32 minutes in and i have to bail..

Science is not a solid block of impenetrable iron, separated from magic and religion.

All science was once magic or religion, until we learnt to understand how they worked and they became a part of science, and many 'magical' things still do to this day.

There's a reason none of magic or religion is taken seriously in science - it doesn't work... if it worked, it would BE science.

and it WILL be science, if it ever starts to work.

[mackles]

@sholio Is there any point you just tried to make? You bailed on finishing because science isn't impenetrable...by what? Personal belief? This is a 20 hour lecture. You finished 30 minutes, and are asking questions that were answered in that time. I hope that this isn't the way that you behave in response to all events in your life...

[AcesBlazin]

That is one amazingly engaging professor. And shes not hard on the eyes either. Nothing is more attractive tha an intelligent, confident woman.

[KaraBear567]

I really don't agree with her - the modern 'science vs religion' debate is centered around the fact that science, and improved education in general, has disproven much/most religious beliefs. This has resulted in cognitive dissonance for religious people, who in turn most either reject science or reject their religious beliefs.

Then again, I've only watched 23 minutes so far, so maybe she brings this up later :).

[speekeasy5]

@KaraBear567

re watch the first min. she defines her terms, including science. she says its broad. and she says thats the point. truth is found in the mountains. its a sad thing that it seems you live in the valleys.

[ShaunPhilly]

utter BS. This is so indicative of postmodern and anti-science rhetoric.

[Iambecome]

@ShaunPhilly

That's what I suspected. Thank you for saving me the time of watching through it.

[Xeranx]

I haven't watched the whole thing, but I have to say kudos to the professor and whoever thought to actually have a class like this exist. Just listening to the first few minutes I end up thinking, "This must be the most difficult class to teach without stepping on a few (many) toes".

If we still had the star system I'd rate 5 stars just for the attempt.

[gorgolyt]

disappointing. i've watched about 20 minutes and it all seems like vague ideas. i was looking for a clear, rational study of the history of science and religion, but this is not it.

[valentine1980]

@gorgolyt - Hi there, if that's what you're looking for I urge you to give this twenty-hour lecture series on the subject a little more than 20 minutes of your time. I'd suggest investing in the first hour at least and maybe dip into other lectures in the series depending on your area of interest.

[TRUTHSEEKER009]

Transformers sports bottle, Nice.

[dohgonmomoh]

Please go to the book: THE SIGN AND THE SEAL. It's written by Graham Hancock. Go to page 308. Read the last sentence on the page. What you'd read will confirm whether you are educating or miseducating.

Professor MOmOh

[TRUTHSEEKER009]

@dohgonmomoh Graham Hancock is the Man!

[dohgonmomoh]

@TRUTHSEEKER009 well appreciated. ThANKHs!

[The420shredhead]

I used to watch these lectures a lot when i was into the new age.

She soooo sexy; so i keep coming back even though i now believe the NAM is horse shit ;)

...She can prove me wrong any day though, sooo fine lol

[goforkt]

Fun lecture, but I don't think science is not a belief system. To compare it to religion as another, similar belief system is getting off on the wrong foot.

[Mrtenmil]

Definition: atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God .

Just swap that very scary "God" word with "Energy" and study a little quantum physics.

Proclaiming oneself an atheist might then require some reconsideration.

[DejectedPanda]

Hot for teacher.

[MrNicMachiavelli]

This professor is sexy.

[hostilekid21]

She kind of looks like Sandra Bullock... Speechless!

[O8SERVER]

Science > Religion

[slonerider777]

God, Science & The Secret Doctrine - Part 1 of 8 watch?v=7JESGMPI3yw

[slonerider777]

Keiser Report №23: Markets! Finance! Scandal! watch?v=yx8Wpuu8-Dw

[athiria]

Hehe, this makes me wanna study history.

[byScrooby]

"God: Hidden Science" - Google it!

[meriter]

She is beautiful and smart.

[welovetruth]

We need to think hard to know the truth

[myrozette]

This course is a lot baloney. She is unable to equate psychology and medicine. Her agnostic beliefs impinge on her teaching skills.

[SkyDaddy7]

@myrozette So, she has to believe in magic & supernatural to be able to teach?

Care to explain?

[CyberPieProductions]

i know this is off topic, but i am diggin the decepticon drink bottle

[1888junkteam]

excellent work!

[woweewo]

Smart and beautiful. =)

[akoolguynamedme]

Her cup has a transformers sign....

[briannguyen]

the professor is fine

[Roan7995]

What's the problem with her understanding of it? I just want to hear a contrary opinion, I'm not looking for a debate. Just curious. I've watched this whole series, so I'd like to know your thoughts.

[MsWanderer1]

She calls science a philosophy; it's a methodology based process not an opinion driven philosophy. Magic and religion are simply superstition for morons.  I find it annoying that idiots place science in the same category as religion. If it's based on opinion or belief, it is NON SCIENCE. If someone has testable evidence of their religious beliefs then it would not be a religion. She seems to be trying to justify human superstitions as acceptable science.

[Roan7995]

Interesting.

See, I'm an atheist--but I felt as though there was a lot in her lectures that would be very difficult for theists to accept without taking offense as well. I suppose it's hard to teach a class about these three things without offending someone; that's what makes it interesting. Thanks for your thoughts.

[HandiCripple666]

@Roan7995 Unfortunately, there is no nice way of saying, "you're wrong." Nobody likes being wrong or being told they're wrong – especially when they're wrong. But the facts are the facts and if you can't accept the facts – you're wrong. Theology and science go together like oil and water. Try all you like to mix them, but in the end all you have is water with an oily mess on top. The fact is, "oil" has no place in "water". And if you can't accept that – you're wrong.

[leconfidant]

@Roan7995 As a pro-religion Buddhist, no, not offensive at all. Dawkins, Hitchens, they see religion as a kind of science that happens to be wrong. They don't get it. This woman is genuinely open minded and fair. She's not promoting one or the other, she's just describing to the best of her understanding what seems to be going on and what the paradoxes and ironies are. It's really cool.

[connect2reality]

In this context, do magic and alchemy equate?

[timray99]

so far i am halfway through the lectures.....very interesting and a great professor......hope she does more lectures...helluva lot better than the crap i have sat thru at Harvard or Yale....men are such pompous arses

[SkyDaddy7]

Not all of us men are "pompus arses"...But I would agree many are.

[tristramshandy3]

the poli sci class and the ancient greece class at yale are both really good.

sure, some men are pompous asses. some women are snobbish c*&^s.

I don't see what that has to do with the wonderful pursuit of knowledge.

Viva Montaigne.

[WiggaTriggaTV]

wow, there are a lot of views on this long-ass video. UCLA ALL DAY!

[conspirisi]

looks promising, although I wish she wouldn't using the term "we", like she's speaking for all of us. Some of us, still haven't separated voodoo from the natural world. I appreciate it's a "reasonable" assumption, but the least she could do is define what she means by "we".

[nastassja08]

where is her hat? why is she not wearing one here?

[Roan7995]

Goblins took it.

[michaelaK67]

These lectures just keep getting better and better - I just finished number 20 and it was time well spent.

Anyone who is interested in the subject matter - keep watching! Anyone who simply can't get over the fact that a woman can be both intelligent and attractive - I hope you'll grow up eventually

[beagr22]

I took this class at UCLA. Best class I ever had at the school. For those watching this video--Dr. Raia is also a very nice person

[mokitoot]

excellent, excellent lecture.

[malignsound]

Mediocre lecture, it's all a bit too naive.

[ryanb9]

omg she is hot. i cant pay attention argggg

[temdatli]

Science= reality, things that are actually usable in life. Religion=fantasy, belief in things that are not seen so no reason to prove it. Religion is dangerous because it teaches people to not think or accept life as it really is. Its been used to control the minds of its followers with the threat of eternal torture. Everyone who uses a computer, a car etc. believes in science. If your in an accident you call 911. You might also pray but there is never an answer. The silence of god speaks loudly

[ogirv101]

"Science= reality, things that are actually usable in life. Religion=fantasy, belief in things that are not seen so no reason to prove it."

You obviously don't understand the basic concepts of Science or Religion. Science is a method of understanding nature thorugh scientific observation and inquiry. Religion is the belief in God through a basis of logic, reason, philosophy, and Science. Newton the most influential scientist of all time believed in God, Aristotle father of logic did too.

[ogirv101]

You obviously don't understand Science or Religion. Science is the study of nature through Scientific inquiry and observation. Religion is the belief in God based on logic, reason, philosophy, and a scientific basis.

The most influential scientist of all time was Newton and he believed in God. Aristotle the father of ancient philosophy and the father of reason and logic believed in God as well. Descartes the father of modern philsoophy believed in God as well, so think before you type.

[EntinludeX]

The Babylonians were using the Pythagorean theorem at least 15 centuries before Pythagoras drew his first triangle, and in A.D. 200 a Chinese mathematician calculated an incredibly accurate value for pi. The Mayans and other Mesoamericans were outstanding sky watchers and stargazers.

SO we should give serious consideration to ALL of their religious superstitions and many deities as well, right?? LOL ^_^"

[ogirv101]

No, in reality the Babylonians only had pythagorean triples and not the pythagorean therom itself, try readin shit right you moron. Yes, I know that the chinese discovered 355/113 gives an accurate representation of pi, but a Christian European actually found a more precise quantity independently. The Mayans killed themselves in cults (I'm guatemalan, I've read the popol vuh and their shit, I have enough reason to conclude it's false.)

Any more bullshit you want me to hear?

[EntinludeX]

No I've read the Bible. I've heard quite enough bullshit from that mythology for me, thanks.

[ogirv101]

Yeah, you made a fool of yourself already, why should we trust anything you've said as valid. You obviously can read meticoulously, and you obvious can't read the Bible right. Of course the Bible has myth, legend, parable, but isn't that literature you moron? Furthermore, Jesus' ressurection is historical fact, I know you'll object, but no one cares, you're the one who says the Babylonians used the pythagorean theorom.

[EntinludeX]

Resurrections are a historical fact, but the Bible is myth, legend, and parable. Superstitious nonsense.

[ogirv101]

Again, you obviously have no respect for anyone's beliefs. If that's how you live life, how can you expect anyone to respect your beliefs? You obviously lack intellectual humility, and arrogant people like you usually don't enjoy life or become eminent people. Here's something to explain your confusion:

"I know myth when I see it, I know legend when I see it and I know an eye-witness account when I see it. I recognize metaphor when it's there.....

[ogirv101]

....All of this is in the Bible. All of it is inspired. But far from all of it is literal history."- CS Lewis

[Grymyrk]

Yeah as well as all those other alleged messiah resurrections that are "historical fact". Like Krishna, Horus, Mohammad, Dionysus etc...

[ogirv101]

LMAO, you really need to stop watching Zeitgeist and get a real education on Religion.=p

[Grymyrk]

Christians invented Christmas and Easter... God is not genocidal and your mom is the king of England. Why don't you stop being ignorant. Your channel is full of science videos yet you still have an emotional need for invisible sky daddy.

[ogirv101]

Christmas is a Christian tradition to celebrate the birth of Christ, but the dat eis inaccuate, the date is what it is because Constantine tried to force pagan traditions out of the holy roman empire. Ad hominems and appeal to ridicule fallacies don't give you the upper hand in reasoning, I suggest you stop being a fool.

[RastafariPoet]

Thank you! I've debated against many people against religion. Basically what I've heard was just that I hear from Zeitgeist. aka having no research for themselves. Except if its already pertaining to their belief that religion is false.

[Astylebabe]

The resurrection is a historical fact. This is why when studying Medicine, you learn that death is permanent, unless you resurrect as happened to Jesus.

Hahaha.

[ogirv101]

The concept of death isn't even defined objectively, death is subjective. So a person is dead as soon as what? Al the cells in his body die out, or his whole body as a function dies out? A Body that stops functioning can only be temporary but can stil be brought back. It all depends on what you think death is, by the way I take Medicine as a career, so you just made a fool of yourself.

[Astylebabe]

ok. Jesus woke up from a coma, then.

[ogirv101]

That's your perspective on it, we don't know how jesus di what we did, except in History we do know that he died, and he came back after a lethal wound. He might not have even been hurt at all, there are multifarious hypotheses about what happened to him, and all rely on faith of somekind, even if you want to say it was a natural cause because we don't know what happened. I personally stay nautral on the subject.

[Astylebabe]

There is no historical proof that he even EXISTED. So yes, let us rely on faith. However, I expect doctors to know what they are doing when they pronounce someone dead. But then, I am not a doctor and I am the fool.

[ogirv101]

LMFAO, no historical proof that he existed? That has to be a joke right? tacitus, mona bar sarpeon, Josephus flavious, there are over 41 secular sources,a dn the gospels themselves count as sources for his existance. The gospels were written 40 years after his death, Jews cannot bear false witness, and jewish culture has it to memorize your master's word and accounts by memory. Jews memorized Torah word by word, they had a very accurate depiction of Jesus,especially only 40 years after his death

[ogirv101]

There has been no historical account of myth developing from a story in 40 years, if you do, enlighten the whole historical cosensus. Furthermore, Alexander the Great's biography was written 400 years after his death, that's 10 times more than Jesus' timefram from his biography, not to mention the Jews vaidity (memorization & no bearing false witness). So if you say there is no proof Jesus existed, the statement that Alexander the great never existed is an even more true statement.

[ogirv101]

No, there is no general cosensus among the medical field on what Doctors can pronounce who is dead or not. Ever heard of pulling the plug? People can go many years in coma and still come back to life, or they can just die. You are the fool, trying to make a difficult concept seem simple, death has many philosophical and scientific intricacies, stop being a primitive fool.

[Astylebabe]

Re: historical proofs of Jesus' existence, see Hitchens, Penn & Teller (Elvis is alive!), many scholarly sources. I have no interest in the subject, so you do the search

Re: vegetative states vs. jesus' story. Believers understand a resurrection as being completely dead (as when we bury people - although following your reasoning, we definitely should NOT), then mysteriously coming back to life. Believe that can happen if you will, but this primitive fool can't take you seriously as a doctor.

[ogirv101]

Wait so you want me to research a biased source? My sources come from knowledge I've attained unibiasedly, and so instead of refuting me you give me a biased source like that of Hitchens? You must be out of your mind, you cleary have no debating skills,a dn you're an ignorant fool.

You're making the ssumption that all beievers believed Jesus even ressurected in the first place let aone died completely, that's a strawman argument.

[Astylebabe]

Hitchens cites Jewish sources: archaeologists who dedicated their work to prove the Bible was right, and had to conclude there was not a shred of evidence. BIASED?!

'Furthermore, Jesus' ressurection is historical fact'. Your own words.

[Astylebabe]

(contd.)

'resurrect |rɛzəˈrɛkt| verb [ trans. ] restore (a dead person) to life' (dictionary). If you're not COMPLETELY dead, you cannot resurrect. My debating skills may be poor, but your reasoning skills are non-existent.

'If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people' (Dr House). I give up!

[ogirv101]

Give me the sources, and explain to me what the sources say, because my sources completely contradict your sources.

[Astylebabe]

I'm sorry. As I said earlier, I have no interest in the subject. But if you want to know more, you could start with Hitchens 'God is not great', check his sources, then go from there: library, good bookshops, maybe google 'no proof for Jesus'... For me, there are much more pressing issues, but if i believed that someone really resurrected (and is the son of god), yea, i would definitely investigate! Good luck :)

[ogirv101]

So, God is not great is your source? Honestly, do you think I'm going to read a source that biased? Then you say you want me to google, no proof for Jesus? You have to be kidding me, it's like me referencing a book that says 'God is Great', or look up on google 'proof for Jesus'. Come on, you have just shown your invalidity and your dearth to argue.

[Astylebabe]

I said, check Hitchens' sources (scientists, archaelogists, historians, etc.). Then search further, wherever it takes you. Or believe in the unbelievable. Your mind, your responsibility. End of discussion.

[thefalz]

@Astylebabe

If the person you call 'he' is jesus, then no that's rather incorrect. There are so many biblical and non-biblical writing that mention that a man called jesus who was a religous character actually existed, so you may be taken up on that by some christian fanatics.

I'm an athetist as well so don't have a go, but yeah.. not exactly right on that one.

[SkyDaddy7]

Your description of what religion is was rather funny but sad at the same time...The is NOTHING of "scientific basis" when it comes to religion, period! Nor is there "reason & logic" when it comes to religion especially "reason & logic" via rational thinking. Religion is belief system that requires no proof, no logic, no reason and is the exact opposite of scientifically based.

I seriously doubt Newton would hold the same religious views today if he knew what we know today.

[ogirv101]

Wait, so religion is something taht requires no proof, no logic, no reason. well if that's a case, then my Christian belief isn't a religion. If you wish to say it is, then you're commiting something called a sepcial pleading fallacy, because my belief is based off such.

Also, I find it disturbing that you think that what we know today would change Newton's mind. What do we knwo today that Newton didn't know? That there was a beggining and physcial constants are precise to million digits?

[SkyDaddy7]

@ogirv101 "sepcial pleading fallacy" WHATEVER! Christianity claims it and ONLY IT knows the truth and owns the path to ever lasting life...This is the rules of your religion and I did not set them! Therefore, the question has to asked what "logic, reasoning or scientific basis" could you have used to agree with this? NONE! Sorry, but religion of any faith is based 100% on FAITH. That is believing in something you cannot see or prove via "logic, reasoning or scientific basis" PERIOD!

[ogirv101]

@SkyDaddy7:

Once again, special pleading fallacy, except this time you added a bare assertion fallacy ( so much for logic on your part). You're defining what Christianity is (without ever even taking a class on theology to understand it). Atheism is based on 100%faith, I said so, and my arguments are true because I said that this premise is true.

You're a fallacious moron, try asking a Christian what their faith is, and ask every individual because people have different positions.

[SkyDaddy7]

@ogirv101 LOL! You have no idea what education I have had in theology...I can assure you I have had formal classes on theology comparitive studies on Judaism, Christianity & Islam, & especially the New testament. Studying religions played a huge role in me being a non believer! LOL!

Just like many who enroll in the seminary get rude awakening on how the Bible was written/rewritten/changed/tran­slated from dif languages/etc., For many this education changes their view "god's word"

Cont...

[SkyDaddy7]

@ogirv101 All of the answers Newton did not have to questions about the natural world he injected there must be a supernatural cause...However, many of those questions now have firm answers & the answers have nothing to do with a god.

If Newton knew about facts like Atomic Theory, Theory of Light, Theory of Evolution, Quantum Theory, the true age of the Universe/Earth, the size of the Universe, Information Theory, the list of answers goes on & on! The gaps where a god can exist are far fewer!

[ogirv101]

@SkyDaddy7:

"All of the answers Newton did not have to questions about the natural world he injected there must be a supernatural cause" ~YOU

"Hypotheses non fingo"~ Isaac newton (ibid, Philosophiae Naturalism Principia Matematica)

I'm done here, I'm not dealing with a lying, fallacious sack of atheistic trash. Don't respond, I'm done arguing with a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[SkyDaddy7]

@ogirv101 I have no idea how you came up with I was defining Christianity. If you think I am the one who defined Christianity as the one true path to everlasting life then you need to READ THE BIBLE!

Are you saying Christianity is not the one true path to everlasting life?

I think you have found yourself talking to someone who does know what they are talking about & this is why you are upset.

[ogirv101]

@SkyDaddy7:

i didn't feel a "rude" awakening. It may be rude to those who are simplistic and have skewed views of their own religion (Young Earth Creationists, Biblical literists, etc.), but not to me. In fact my studies have deepened my belief in Christianity, and provided new insight on its meaning. I want you to watch a debate between Hugh Ross and Kent Hovind, so you can understand what I'm saying.

[ogirv101]

@SkyDaddy7:

Furthermore, you keep on commiting SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACIES. I never said such a thing, you're bringing up strawmen. This is the reason why I quit with you, look back on what you said of Newton. You made a claim about his ideas, then I quoted him contradicting your lies. I'm done with lying immoral shits like you, don't respond, everyone can see your hypocrisy.

[SkyDaddy7]

@ogirv101 Just bc you say I have done something does not make it true! LOL! I went back & looked at what I said about Newton & your claim is hollow!!LOL!

To be clear you are the one jumping around bc your 1st claim of "special pleading" had to do with my defining of what Christianity is. Now you are claiming it was about Newton?!?!? WTF?

You probably should stop now as you are the one who seems to be lost & struggling for something to hold onto.

[EntinludeX]

Theology is just mythology waiting to happen.

No more a valid field of study than is Cryptozoology.

[MrLesWhite]

it is a cycle mythology gets so antiquated that people think it is occult or hidden knowledge and then turn it into dogma

[clauferrari]

She is pretty H O T

[dupreee27]

she's haWT!!!!

[EntinludeX]

She totally had me at Decepticon thermist.