Atheism

@Frank Apisa,

But it makes no difference.

@timur,

timur wrote:

You are doing that crap again about manhood. Appealing to emotions is the your way to act as a weasel.

You stated countless asinine assertions and you have been called on them.

Acknowledge that you are a weasel and that you are wrong on many counts, especially your statements about atheists.

Point out and quote any statement that I have made about atheists or atheism that you consider "wrong"...and we can discuss it.

I doubt you will...because there are none. And doubt you are man enough to acknowledge that there are none.

So...continue to weasel, Timur...and I will continue to enjoy watching your act. Wink

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

But it makes no difference.

Okay.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You really are a poor guy thinking you are clever..

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

You really are a poor guy thinking you are clever..

No, Timur...I don't think so.

But I notice you are not quoting anything I said that you think is wrong.

C'mon...you got started on me heavy just a little bit ago. You can read everything I have written during the last day.

Point out anything that I have said that you find wrong. Just quote it or link to it.

You know you cannot do that...and I know you cannot do it. I suspect everyone here realizes that you cannot.

So why not man up and acknowledge that nothing I have written here is what you consider "wrong?"

0 Replies

@Herald,

Your post is silly. The Big Bang is a theory. If you think it's hogwash you are free to reinterpret the evidence or gather new evidence, and you won't get excommunicated or burnt at the stake. You won't have it shoved down your throat through childhood or have to accept a whole bunch of other untestable theories as a job lot. You can choose to accept the bits that seem to make sense and class the rest as 'uncertain' in your own mind without being called a heretic or apostate. You can change your mind if the evidence warrants without centuries old power structures actively trying to make you conform to their theories.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I put him on ignore a while ago because he didn't pay my moon cheese theory the respect it deserved i.e. revere it as much his favourite endlessly repeated non-point. Life is good.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Maybe, he's not an expert on moon cheese. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Those who do not believe in God do so with the knowledge that they do not actually know whether God actually exists.

I do know. With absolute certainty. I've got no doubts, no second guesses. I consider theism to be a mental illness.

3 Replies

@Wilso,

Quote:

they do not actually know whether God actually exists.

Another 'nut' in our midst. Shocked

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Another 'nut' in our midst.

Does that make you the dick in the middle?

http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/rofl1.gif

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

There continues to be more evidence for the big bang than any other explanation for the physical universe.

     This statement is too general to be taken seriously ... and actually does not mean anything. Why don't you just answer the questions:
     -Do you think that the Big Bang is a scam, the exclusive idea of which is to present science as the mastermind of the Universe?
     -How can you explain that there is not a single law of physics (feasibility) and math logic (plausibility) applicable to the Big Bang?
     -How do you personally verify the assumptions of the Big Bang - what verification and validations tests you run?
etc.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Saying "god created everything" is not evidence of anything. It's total fiction based on mythology and nothing more.

[/quote]     If you are curious to know, the probability for another Intelligent Life Form (ILF) to have created us is much greater than the probability for the Big Bang to have created us out of start dust or whatever. We are not talking about the probability to create 3D space out of zero-D space yet.
     1. What evidences do you personally have that we are 'the First (ILF in the Universe) and still The Best (the most advanced form of civilization known in the Universe)'?
     2. What evidences do you personally have that a stochastic process can 'create' DNA sequence?
     3. What evidences do you personally have that anything can exist in the physical world with contradictions in the self, in essence?
     4. Can you name some of those 'There continues to be more evidence for the big bang'?
     5. What do you understand under 'unresolvable contradictions in physics, math logic and cognitive science'?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

1) You're right, I shouldn't believe such a claim about the Big Bang without evidence. And I won't. BUT . . .

You have no evidences. You simply cannot understand how many none evidences you have, can you? Evidence is something that matches the whole puzzle ... up to the 'eighteenth digit after the decimal point'. A piece of a puzzle that matches the puzzle despite of its unresolvable contradictions with major and reputable sciences is not a valid evidence ... in any case scenario.

Thomas wrote:

2) This claim is entirely independent of the claim that any gods exist, including the particular god of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Forget about the Gods - I am not going to dispute whether the interpretations of the various religions are valid or not, whether these interpretations are a cross-cultural misunderstanding of the Message of God (if any), or not. The fundamental question is: Are we biorobots, designed by another ILF or we are star dust converted somehow into DNS sequence?

Thomas wrote:

If the claim was false, that wouldn't prove the existence, or even the likelihood, of such gods. So I don't understand why you're pivoting towards it.

Yes, you don't understand is exactly the case for you construct your statement on absolutely false assumptions ... and BTW on the logical fallacy of the excluded middle If it is not the Big Bang it must be God and vice versa ... and nothing else can stand in-between.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Thomas wrote:
1) You're right, I shouldn't believe such a claim about the Big Bang without evidence. And I won't. BUT . . .
You have no evidences. You simply cannot understand how many none evidences you have, can you?

You are assuming that I'm adhering to some particular belief about how the Big Bang happened and what the world, if any, looked like before it. I don't --- because, as you say, there's no evidence on how the Big Bang happened.

Herald wrote:

If it is not the Big Bang it must be God and vice versa ... and nothing else can stand in-between.

I said no such thing. I would observe, however, that a Big Bang that "just happened" is simpler, and hence statistically less unlikely, than a god that "just happened" and then went on to set off the Big Bang.

PS: Your amateurish attempts to insert your own HTML formatting into your posts won't work. I suggest you give up.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

You are assuming that I'm adhering to some particular belief about how the Big Bang happened and what the world, if any, looked like before it. I don't --- because, as you say, there's no evidence on how the Big Bang happened.

... if it happened at all. If you really are agnostic, behave as such - accept the shift in the red light as-it-is, accept that it is equal in all directions and nothing else - neither any space expansion, nor time-space continuum, nor gravitational continuum, nor any equations with 'dark' (unknown to the astrophysicists) energy. The evidences up to where they are evidences and from where they start becoming pseudo-science-fiction.

Thomas wrote:

I would observe, however, that a Big Bang that "just happened" is simpler, and hence statistically less unlikely, than a god that "just happened" and then went on to set off the Big Bang.

     Forget about that Big Bang - you have no direct evidences that it happened at all, that it has existed and/or is existing at present and is headed to the future ... let alone of creating whatever.
     The red shift in the light spectrum (emitted photons in the distant past) could be due to blue shift in (shrinking of) the elementary particles at present (that we use as a basis to measure that 'red shift').
     It might be also some property of light when travelling at great distances, it might be due to logarithmic deformation of the space with the distance or some other 'dark property' - not necessarily space expansion.
     Besides that the light might reduce its speed when travelling at huge distances - the space is not an ideal environment after all and the loss of the light beam energy might become detectable (even to our instruments) at huge distance.

Thomas wrote:

PS: Your amateurish attempts to insert your own HTML formatting into your posts won't work. I suggest you give up.

This is not HTML - this is the wiki format that this side is using, and BTW it is none of your business whether I make it by handwriting or use the supplied buttons ... unless you are the system administrator-in-chief of this website, of which I doubt.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Until one of you "geniuses" wins the noble prize for disproving these major scientific theories, you're just another quote mining theist fuckwit, dribbling the same superstitious crap, because your pathetic, frightened little mind can't accept you're alone in the universe. Another nobody for the ignore list. **** off and goodbye.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

Until one of you "geniuses" wins the noble prize for disproving these major scientific theories.

Thank you for the qutation marks, but if you are curious to know the Nobel Price (or something equivalent) for the Big Bang should be awarded by the Church, not by the science to itself. The accreditation is usually done by external parties, not by yourself. One cannot issue certificate to himself that he is the greatest thinker of all times or whatever.

Wilso wrote:

... you're just another quote mining theist fuckwit

I am not theist - I am agnostic, and BTW your emotional hues in the statement do not make any contributions to its semantics.

Wilso wrote:

... dribbling the same superstitious crap

Prove it - that the calculation of the probability for us to be made by an ILF is greater than the probability for us to be made by casino performances of any kind. Why don't you prove that any calculations made on the grounds of formal math logic models and conventional calculus are 'superstitious crap' - prove this without using ad homs ... nor any other logical fallacies of any kind.

Wilso wrote:

... because your pathetic, frightened little mind can't accept you're alone in the universe.

My 'frightened little mind' has calculated that the probability for an ILF to be alone in that huge universe is highly improbable ... beyond the absolute margin of impossibility.

Wilso wrote:

... Another nobody for the ignore list. **** off and goodbye.

Have a nice flight.

0 Replies

@Herald,

I read this then stopped

Quote:

Big Bang is a scam, the exclusive idea of which is to present science as the mastermind of the Universe

You don't have a clue do you?

Science is a methodology, a way of testing theories. It's not the mastermind of anything.

You think it's a one on one replacement for god, because your mind appears locked into a theistic outlook. But it's not a replacement for anything except blind acceptance.

1 Reply

Harald is one of those members who believes that hacking up someone's post and cobbling together some drivel to respond to each clause is evidence of critical thinking. Actually, it's just evidence of a desire to appear to be an organized, systematic thinker, even though the drivel he posts is most often not even relevant to the discussion as it has progressed.

The so-called big bang is an excellent case in point--the term, invented by a Catholic priest, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one believes or does not believe that there is a god. LeMaitre's theory also has nothing to do with the process known as evolution. The process known as evolution has nothing to do with whether or not anyone believes that there is a god.

If you engage Harald in his witless assertions, you're just dancing to his frantic and discordant tune.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

When an atheist criticizes religion, it is mostly from a need for self defense.

That is truly unfortunate. An "eye for an eye" perhaps?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know