I give up arguing with you pox.

You're bastardising what I say and arguing against it. You constantly keep modifying the concept every single time someone criticises it or you assume someone else will sort the problem out for you.

Not to mention you keep making claims without proving them (even after I post a link showing otherwise). Having text in bold doesn't give it more validity, assuming people will do X after Y doesn't mean they will. Having no knowledge on exactly who applies, examination techniques, construction, the aftermath etc etc etc etc is not an excuse. You've done no research into this and you're trying to save an already un-savable burning house.

If you're going to argue like a creationist, then I'm not going to argue about it.

Actually, you pissed and moaned at me for the same things in a debate we had last year. Coincidentally, you said the same thing as well.

At 10/9/09 09:53 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/9/09 09:09 PM, Brick-top wrote:

It seems the capping off point isn't long enough.

?

You suggested sending kids (with an unknown age or physical/mental health) to fat camp. The link showed it was the elderly who are higher on the obesity scale.

So, your idea is flawed. Even if the concept of sending people to camps were viable, it would be older people who would be sent.

Did you even bother to read any of the links I provided?

Yeah I CONSIDERED it and I DON'T CARE. Someone else can figure out a solution.

You are the one who must work out all the problems if you are the originator.

For example, if two NASA researchers were talking:
"Hey, when the new shuttle program begins in 2010, let's send someone to Pluto" (the space shuttle program ends next year, in case you didn't know)
"Okay, how?"
"I don't care, you figure it out"

If you're just going to throw any idea on to the table and then let everyone else do the leg work, all your ideas would be dismissed.

Yeah I don't think going to the doctor once a year is going to cripple the system.

Okay, there are roughly 41 million people in the US who are under 19.

When your concept is passed, 41 million people will (by law) need to visit the doctor. Will it be on the same day? How will you coordinate that many people? And when did you earlier say it was annual?

You've gave us a vague concept, and then you keep adding to it when someone questions or criticises it. Like I said, you think about this thoroughly and then present your case.

Especially considering that this program is intended to lower future doctor visits.

'Intended' doesn't mean "it will cause".

But here's a fun question, how many injuries are caused in gyms?

Guess how many times you have to go see the doctor when you get diabetes.

Diabetes can also be caused by age, pregnancy, toxins, diseases etc etc etc.

Does that mean we should also send the elderly and pregnant woman away? They cost more money in hospitals too ;)

We see how well that's working.

Oh yes, this new service is doing quite well.

Maybe you can speak to this girl.

You mean like this?

?

You said BMI tests are a good indicator, the link showed it's not accurate. And you made a thread not long ago criticising the accuracy of the polygraph machine.

So you're happy to use one inaccurate method, but you bash another?

Increase costs of what?
?

Roughly 24% of Americas (united states) population (24% of 300 million is 72 million) would require placement (depending on who qualifies).

Let's say you made camps that could hold 100 personnel. That's 720,000 buildings.

How many treadmills will there be in each camp? 10 people per treadmill, that would make it 10 treadmills per campe.

From the shopping sites I've been on, a good commercial treadmill will cost you roughly $5000 (USD) each.

That costs over three and a half billion.

My math may be rough and you have yet to specifically specify exactly who qualifies.

But don't forget to add all the other machinery. Then you need to buy the land, construct a building with electricity, water and gas supply. Will they be staying overnight? If so you need to build living quarters.

You really haven't thought this through have you?

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/19/obesity -fat-costs_cx_mh_0720obesity.html
Being fat costs us tens of BILLIONS.

How many camps do you think you can build with just one billion dollars?

Apparently that wont cover the cost for the machines, let alone construction.

This isn't China, you don't need to work when you're 12.

I never said 12.

However, they do get experience and money working very simple and small jobs.

I forgot to mention, in the UK schools send children to work for 2 weeks to gain experience. They may get some minor rewards but they're not entitled to any payment whatsoever.

If I were honest, I'd rather work a job that gives me spending money.

You can go work at McDonald's when you're 16 and can skip fat camp you lard.

Obviously every worker at Mcdonalds will be hugely fat. And every plastic surgeon is stunningly handsome, every dentist has perfect teeth, every make up artist is gorgeous and every flight attendant is a 24 year old single blonde.

Oh wait, they're not.

Or like I said, lose the weight if you want a job next summer instead of going to camp.

Healthy weight loss is 1-2 pounds per week.

If someone is 60lbs overweight, that would be 30 weeks. That's over 6 months in camp.

They have real lives to attend to, they can't spent the time you're suggesting in fat camp.

Yeah read the thread

Every post?

No, only my posts are relevant ( as usual )

Yet they always seem to be met with negativity, a list of links, arguments etc debunking everything you say and most importantly they're never anything original, interesting or presented.

If you're a kid.
It's hilarious how no one seems to have picked up on the fact that we already force kids to do pretty much anything we want.

Such as? One example could refute this statement since you said it was a fact and you're implying it's been done throughout by not saying 'some' or 'most'.

Therefore, I'm the example. My parents never made me 'do everything they want'. They advised what I should and shouldn't do, I was free to make my own decision (unless it caused harm to myself and others).

The only thing they need to do is:
1. Not break any laws.
2. Get an education.

BUT OH NO PLEASE DON'T MAKE THEM GO TO CAMP NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You're right because their levels of responsibility is 'shockingly' high..

..oh wait, it isn't. I feed my pets everyday since I was 6, I volunteered to do it, I was never forced to do so. If I cannot someone else does. Simple as that.

Yeah I don't get your point.
I was talking about people who manage to lose weight and keep it off. We are a minority among dieters and an even smaller minority among fat people.

lolwut?

I said I lost weight because of my job.
You said it was anecdotal and according to stats it's not working.
My link shows work CAN have an effect on your weight.

First line:
"Desk jobs are increasing obesity, with many employees and employers ignorant of the risks of sitting down all day"

At 10/8/09 05:22 PM, poxpower wrote: I'm not a doctor, a nutritionist or trainer. I can't tell you when it's good to start or not.
The thing would cap probably at 16, which is the drop out age for school ( here at least).
I don't know when it would start. I'd say between primary and high school, whatever your age might happen to be at the time, so around 11-12?

It seems the capping off point isn't long enough.

Do the disabled qualify? I know several fat people with severe autism. Would they be sent away?

I don't know how to answer that or how that would work. I don't really care.

But this is your idea, you must consider all options. Or are you just throwing something vague into the ring and letting everyone else figure it out for you?

After you have established age, what about weight?

Well first there will be a mandatory doctor visit to determine your health risks and fitness level.

Which would increase cost for examinations and cause massive waiting times.

Then, it all will depend on the stats. Right off the bat, you'd have to set an weight, probably around 30 BMI. Then depending on the success rate of that or the risk of other kids to develop obesity later on, you can lower it or raise it.

The NHS already funds stop smoking services and treatment for people who are morbidly obese.

However, this is done by choice, they are not forced into it (and doctors get a bonus if they achieve either in their patients).

You'd have to build a more detailed system than just checking BMI but it's a pretty strong indicator right off the bat.

You mean like this?

You then need to build the camps, employ and/or train people to work.

Piece of cake.

Which would cost more money. Your original scenario was for to hinder costs, not increase them.

Could this cost be higher than treating fat people in hospitals?

I highly doubt it unless every camp has a horse ranch and 10 gym machines for every fat kid.

When you tally up all the costs, it is considerably high.

Most younger kids have part time jobs (delivering newspapers, putting Menu's through people's doors etc). Older kids work in small shops, do odd jobs or do higher education.

You're not supposed to work when you're 13.

Why not? Most of us are stunned when we leave school and enter the real world. Doing this gives you at least some warning. Not to mention some extra money in your pocket.

Though shit. If they want to work next year instead of going to fat camp, then they know what to do.

Being of average weight is about lifestyle, not how many weeks you spend in a camp doing push ups and running for miles at a time.

Yeah read the thread

Every post?

I haven't felt this good in years, and I'm getting PAID for it.

Yeah maybe you can make fat kids work at the camp. But that would sound unethical.
I'm all for it.

Of course it's unethical, because it's forced. When you're employed, you're choosing to do the job and you're getting paid for it.

That difference compared to being taken away and dumped in a site. You're basically saying that eating too much is illegal.

Anyway I'm kind of sick of hearing the anecdotal evidence of how someone lost weight. Good for you if it worked, stats show it's not working

WRONG.

I said my jobs need for more physical activity caused me to lose weight.
You said that doesn't fit the stats.

Say what now?

At 10/5/09 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Let me know what you think ( i.e. how obviously right I am )

Being healthy and being educated are very different things altogether.

I agree, we should all live in a wonderful society where everyone is happy, healthy and intelligent. But that's not going to happen. There are still people in the world who think the earth is stationary.

Firstly, you need to qualify age. Who applies to this? People under 16? 15? 25? 50? I doubt a 75 year old with a plump belly is going to do well climbing ropes and running treadmills.

Do the disabled qualify? I know several fat people with severe autism. Would they be sent away?

After you have established age, what about weight? What if their BMI is borderlined but still over? Do you take them to fat camp for a mere several days?

You then need to build the camps, employ and/or train people to work. You need suppliers, electricity, gas, transportation etc. It's basically like suddenly starting a business on a national level.

If not done carefully, it can have a very decremental effect. Everything would need to be discussed, reviewed, planned and executed. Could this cost be higher than treating fat people in hospitals?

Most younger kids have part time jobs (delivering newspapers, putting Menu's through people's doors etc). Older kids work in small shops, do odd jobs or do higher education. Would these be impeded because they needed to go to fat camp?

On top of all of this, TV, radio, schools, supermarkets etc have all jumped on the bandwagon for making the world healthier. Countless commercials with "Don't smoke, don't eat fat, don't live in populated areas because of pollution etc etc etc"

Being of average weight is about lifestyle, not how many weeks you spend in a camp doing push ups and running for miles at a time.

For example, 6 months ago I got a new job. It involves more physical activity than my previous employments. I have lost roughly 25lbs since I started. I'm eating more fruits and vegetables. I don't eat as much junk anymore and I've almost entirely cut out the booze.

I haven't felt this good in years, and I'm getting PAID for it.

At 10/4/09 01:23 AM, poxpower wrote: So yeah. Wait how many times have I said this now?

If I were to be honest, I have fallen prey to something far worse.

When I first obtained the internet it was a world that I barely knew of and my naive mentality was obvious. In the days that 150mb of ram was high technology and Computer screen were blocks (and I still have that computer collecting dust) I delved into this new and exciting world.

I stumbled upon a website with documentaries (usually things broadcast on discovery, animal planet, history channels etc).

I found a Kent Hovind presentation, being a curious soul I decided to watch the whole 2 hour video (and since it's not copyrighted it was perfectly legal for me to do so).

I believed every little thing that man said. With his "PHD" and "15 years of teaching highschool science" I was hooked. I didn't want to believe it, but I did, it seemed infallible.

Months past, the video slipped my mind but I had adopted some of what Kent said into my thinking. But my interest in science (mainly biology and cosmology) became overwhelming. My teachers would tell me to "speak up" and "talk louder" when asking questions or having discussions about the subjects at hand, while everyone else was talking about their social lives.

I started noticing contradictions with what was said in the video and in the over simplified text books. I wanted to know more about what was going on here. So I jumped in head first. I learned more and more about how 'this' and 'that' worked. Eventually I came to the conclusion Kent was wrong about many scientific studies. But why? Why would anyone present themselves to a group of people and distort facts? Then with a poor school standard education on theology I stumbled upon Creationism.

And since then I've just been updating my knowledge on Science and Religion. I can't believe I was sucked in to his fallacy drowned, lying, deceitful tactics as if my head wasn't screwed on straight.

A little knowledge used wisely has a far greater effect than immense knowledge used carelessly.

In my absence, I did a small experiment over online debates.

First:
I argued a point that myself and the opponent agreed with.

Second:
I argued a point neither myself nor the opponent supported.

Third:
I argued a point I didn't support, but the opponent did.

Forth:
I argued a point I supported but the opponent did not.

What I found was worrying but slightly obvious. Sometimes most people will happily support and search for things that already supports their views (I'm guilty of this). However when it comes to things they do not agree with, they will raise a flag of scepticism, criticism and questioning. Sometimes people will just inherently ignore or dismiss it. (and guilty of this as well). But some are different, if they find something that supports their views but seems odd, they can dismiss it if logic or evidence doesn't support it. In more than one occasion I found some people will cherry pick or delve into a plethora of logical fallacies to make everything fit. I even found a small group that will just make up numbers, quotes, studies, research etc to make it appear their stance is right.

So I have a challenge for you, pick something you already agree with (Religion, Politics, health etc) and argue AGAINST it. Try to find evidence suggesting what you think to be true is false. Don't use the usual sites you normally go on to. Be sceptical on what you think is right and ask is there anything you don't know about the subject that could be relevant.

Doing this, it is possible to know a lot more about the subject you're studying and it could cause more open-mindedness.

At 8/25/09 12:47 AM, zobee wrote: it's nice to know that someone understands it like i do.

I seriously hope you're joking.

Troll check!!!

This hasn't got anything to do with psychology.

It's merely thumping away claims that we all know aren't entirely true.

Polygraphs aren't definitively accurate? Oh gosh darn, I'll call the newspapers and give them this heart stopping news.

Atheist.

But let me clarify.

The most popular definitions:
The belief there is no God.
The Lack of belief in God.
The disbelief in God.

I subscribe to the third definition. I don't accept the claim that there is a self aware, all powerful/knowing/seeing etc entity that was the direct cause for the creation of the universe/earth/life etc.

So long as there is no supernatural occurrences involved and the God in question is something evident (e.g. The sun, nature, life itself etc) then I'll happily accept that form of God because we know life, sun etc exists.

Everyone disbelieves in at least one God or is unaware that people claim it's/their etc exists.

At 8/15/09 10:20 AM, Ericho wrote: not to mention Charles Darwin's own grandfather worked on it too.

And his grandfather's work had influence in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein novel.

At 8/13/09 11:39 PM, rockerdog5 wrote: That does happen in some cases but there are also some others that actually prove the bible could be true. for instance, under god there was no B.C. which has been proven plausible by scientist that say that most stars would be non-existant if there was a B.C. because the stars are releasing energy so fast that they would have died.

If B.C stands for 'Before Christ' then you are mistaken.

If B.C does not stand for 'Before Christ' then clarify what it does.

Also, evolution itself has been almost completely turned down by the main person that thought it himself.

Darwin wasn't the first proponent of Evolution. Common Decent was first proposed by Anaximander in the 6th century BC.

Darwin said that if we were ever to find any complex single cell organism that his thoughts were false. ALL SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS ARE COMPLEX EXCEPT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A SMALL AMOUNT.

Really? Care to give me a quote?

A reference?

Evidence please?

Even if you could. This does not debunk or even dent Evolution. You debunk it by examining the facts. Not the opinion of a scientist who lived over a century ago.

When you walk into a hospital you wont see doctors using methods and knowledge that equate to what they used over a century ago so why are you doing it for evolution?

Lastly, the one i find most interesting is that scientist and religious people have been able to come up with a way that they're both right about the big bang. let me ask you a question.. how long is earth's day?

23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.

now how long is mar's day?

24 hours, 39 minutes and 35 seconds.

saturns?

It's a gas giant. A large ball of Hydrogen and Helium. It's 'days' are inconsistient depending on which part of the planet you examine.

neptunes?

Same answer.

now how about Gods? the big bang could have happened in seconds like scientist say

Which ones?

because no one knows for sure just how long a day is to God.

So you're saying God uses the products of time? What happened to him being supernatural and not bound by the laws of time?

You're doing exactly what I stated. You're taking a 6 (seven if you include the resting period which doesn't make sense if he's all powerful) and saying "It's not a 24 hour day it's actually 1.9 billion years".

You're interpreting it the way you want to fit the facts. Before the concept was proposed you would have attributed the days to 24 hours.

This does not prove Religion. All this proves is Religion is changing based on the knowledge gained by science.

At 8/10/09 09:48 PM, rockerdog5 wrote: i always find it interesting when science and religion can be combined personally. for example god's creation of earth has been combined with the big bang to form some sort of compromise i guess. i just think it's kool that some of the stuff in the bible can actually be proven to be plausible.

You've got it backwards.

Whenever a discovery is made, some Religious people (and I do mean some) reinterpret their scripture or are brought up with a different interpretation to their predecessors.

It's not proving Religion. It's adjusting the belief based on current knowledge.

That's why holy scriptures dated thousands of years don't have cosmological maps of stars, galaxies etc. They don't have a diagram of the cell. They don't have complicated mathematical equations and so on.

Several hundred years ago:
"There's this new concept called Evolution. It's about gradual change over time and we have some fairly good evidence for it"
"LIES! The Bible is true humans have been the same since time started and we haven't changed"

More recently:
"Hooray, we've conclusively proven all life evolves"
"Uhh.....The Bible is metaphorical. When it says God made man in his own image that actually means decent with variation."

I was unaware the government obtained supernatural abilities.

I was unaware the government was supplying worthless protection (e.g. military, police, medical and education).

Without structure to a society along with the knowledge obtained by the fields of scientific discovery and invention (as well as distribution of that knowledge), anarchy would reign over any nation.

People do not worship the government. Until you or anyone else can find a more viable solution to running a country the system that is implemented now is all we can use. Attempting to better that system is the only method we have.

At 7/27/09 02:13 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 7/25/09 05:11 PM, Brick-top wrote: which would have the greatest amount of finger prints.

You really have a thing for fingerprints, don't you?

When did phenotype only refer to fingerprints? My comment was merely an example.

...don't identical twins pretty much have the same fingerprints anyway?

So, do identical twins have identical fingerprints? The basic answer is NO.

At 7/25/09 05:00 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Unless the child has been born and time has allowed for both brothers to have their fingerprints all over the place.

The 9 month time span can erase fingerprints. However with pregnancy testing the knowledge of conception will be shorter than the 9 months.

Additionally I wouldn't know how or why a person would let two brothers into their home. Certainly not the bedroom which would have the greatest amount of finger prints.

At 7/25/09 03:27 PM, Drakim wrote: What? Brick, are you feeling okay?

Absolutely not.

The obvious reply has been said. So saying it again using a different method of phrasing is time consuming and utterly pointless for a discussion. Also I've totally and entirely fucked up my presentation with errors and never explained my reasoning behind it.

This is a psychological analysis based on observations.

The mother sleeps with father A. This is purely anecdotal however I've noticed new couples will have intercourse more at the males home than the females home (assuming all three parties have financial income and residence).

This is where it gets fishy. If the mother sleeps with father B this means she's either cheating or just dumped father A. Either scenario will cause a secretive nature to prevent emotional friction.

Therefore based on what you have said, anecdotal observations and logical thinking the best place for father B and the mother to go is her home. His fingerprints will be all over it.

At 7/24/09 11:53 AM, Drakim wrote: Here is the problem, you can't fucking find out who is the father because they have identical DNA. The sperm they gave are IDENTICAL.

Other than what has already been said I'll add this.

And their phenotype just happens to be identical too?

If said man has sex with said woman, his fingerprints will be everywhere in either persons homes.

The father is found.

At 7/23/09 11:26 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote: This is why I hate religion. It's always everybody thinks their own way is right.

Most Religions will base their own religion off another and over time it alters usually based on increasing knowledge and development of societies.

Give it a rest guys he's just a troll trying to get underneith people's skin.

Don't believe me? Read his profile page and his other thread.

he copies and pastes several paragraphs into different threads. I wouldn't be surprised if he had 10 alts working together just to stir things up.

Report him? Possibly. I'll keep an eye on him and use the usual "search methods" for identifying a troll.

Not only do they not specify a designer they do not in anyway specify what appears designed.

At 7/13/09 05:31 PM, MrNine wrote: Meh, I don't know creationism in its most literal form sounds pretty naive, so I'm an evolutionist and a Christian but the bible says that you only have to believe in Jesus's salvation,

Quote or didn't happen.

And now we have the varying interpretations from vague scripture, once again.

you don't really have to believe that the Earth was made in that manner. Heck, the Bible was written by humans, how was God supposed to explain to them natural selection?

How was God supposed to explain anything? Try to argue the validity of the Bible, not vice versa. But thanks for bringing up doubt on it's accuracy. I was hoping those upcoming prophecies were true but you showed me wrong (insert sarcasm and repeat).

On a further note, a supposedly all powerful and knowledgeable being has the ability to create a universe but does not have the ability to write a book?

Oh come on!

At 7/13/09 05:06 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Creation stories are often similar. that's why creationism does not necessarily claim itself to belong to Christianity solely.

Crationism only means a literal interpretation of scripture. It has nothing to do with similarities.

Also, if 'god did it' is a similarity, then you're merely clutching at straws.

But I have a challenge for you.

Here's a list of Religions.

Find me a specific consistency which spans every single one and does not have variation.

Chop chop.

Also, there are a lot of ways stories in holy books share the same plot over religions.
They may fill in the details individually, the core still remains the same.

EXACTLY!

"Jesus was the son of God"
"Jesus was God in human form"
"Jesus was a metaphorical figure"
"Jesus wasn't any of those things, but he was a moral teacher"
"That's not his real name, it's a mistranslation"

Three years of watching these people bicker amongst themselves while trying to convince me their absolutely right. Now THAT is funny.

At 7/13/09 03:33 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: If you ever take a course in theology, you'll be surprised about what you will find.
In my only course of theology (religion) we kind of covered this.

The basis is fairly self evident when you observe the believers referr to God.

I can do a youtube example.

The user Jezuzfreak777 is a creationist. He believes the universe was created in 7 days, humans were created as they are now and the universe is 6 thousand years old.

The user UNFFwildcard is not a creationist. He believes through the processes of natural science over the span of just under 14 billion years we came to this point in time.

Both men are Christian.

When you watch both men talk about 'the same' God, the consistencies are meagre.

At 7/13/09 03:14 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: However, one also has the possibility that there is 1 god, which has multiple interpretations over several religions. Allah, Jahwe and Jehova, for one are explicitly the same God. (for example, Jesus in the Islam is recognised as a prophet of Allah)
Even polytheistic religuons can be centred about 1 God scattered through some pluralism.

We only know of god through varying interpretations of vague scriptures.

What this God does, is, their mentality, morals etc are completely different. But you can't jumble every single God from every single Religion and/or demonination and say it's the same God. Simply because it's not and only one example will show this *cough* Wicca *cough*

The only consistency in Religion is the inconsistency of the believers.

Pascal's wager obviously falls and many, many people (especially on here) know why.

Smithy:
"I'm a Christian, I believe in God because if I die and there is no God, I lose nothing. But if God exists I get eternity is salvation"

Smithy will eventually find out Allah is the true God and be punished for all eternity.The concept fails because it implies there's a possibility only one God exists, while there are thousands of varying Gods and Religions.

Living your life in an attempt to better society and help those around you is not morally but it's also evolutionary sensible, logical and beneficial. If a God only judges you for your beliefs and not your actions, then that is a God I do not wish to be a part of and I'd happily roast for eternity.

At 7/5/09 01:43 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I have heard from some of you before that atheism hasn't ever gone extreme and persecuted religion like some religious groups have done to others.

Really? Like who? Can I see direct quotes?

Also:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1

And this.

And this too.

The funny part is, you're told to kill by a book you hold dear to you. We're not.

At 7/5/09 06:34 AM, Nitr0gen wrote: And with the Scary Movie 4 and Monty Python contest... i don't know what you're trying to get at? I prefer Monty Python by a friggin landslide.

It was a reply to this:
"the sense that they do actually possess comedic gems of genious proportions"

With what the US movie industry is pulling out, no they don't.

At 7/4/09 04:49 PM, bobsmovie wrote: EG "If it wasn't for us you would be speaking German" <---- Go fuck yourself.

In a Scary Movie 4 and Monte Python: The Life Of Brian contest who would win by a HUGGGE margin?

Thank you and good night.

At 7/3/09 06:47 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: That's a bit overstated, I think. Or maybe the term Wiccan is misused. There are those people who believe nature itself is a God(ess) and determines the laws under which nature operates (through the laws of Physics e.g.)
The afterlife is seen as a form of good luck/protection granted by people who have died, good will. (arguable if they have more attention to the afterlife part, or rather the protection part of those who have died)
As to witchcraft, it happens, but I'm not really sure if this is all of the Wiccan community that follows this and to what extend this happens. there are ceremonial stuff with calling for the Keepers of the Cardinal Directions (which is more of symbolic thing) and there are ideals of new thought (like the law of attraction)

But one should really be careful in taking symbolism for stupidity.

Yes, 'some' however others see both as actual deities. Even some moderate Christians don't see the Abrahamic god as a deity.

Reincarnation is popular in Wicca (as well is the soul which is known as the Aether) and before their souls are shipped to another body they hang out in the otherworld (e,g the afterlife).

So we've got magic, gods, reincarnation and a lounge area. Apparently being more scientific means it's dependant on how less you can bastardise reality and interpret the religion in order to fit the current criteria of knowledge. Hey!! It IS a religion!

At 7/3/09 10:42 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: The thing is that a physics formula often stands for an observation that can be made. So if I say that we live on this earth because the earth attracts us, I've restated the law of gravity.

To which the Wiccan Religion does not have.

But they do have magic, the afterlife, Gods and Aether.

How very scientific indeed.

At 7/3/09 05:57 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 7/2/09 04:50 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Find me scripture or religious texts that shows me a physic's equation.

Find me one physics equation which describes events with 100% accuracy.
Hint: you can find none, because all physics equations are approximations/idealisations of what actually happens.

Who ever said science in general dealt with 100% of accuracy?

The best we can get is that it's close enough for practical purposes.

Science is never truth, it's only a first order approximation of it.

He said:
supports most of scientific fact.

He has not provided any evidence of this other than overly vague and easily interpreted sentences.