Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Constructive Anarchy]

My patience is supposed to be rewarded with no answer?

When you ask the wtrong question? Yes. You want to know what happened before an event that never took place. Nothing happened, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place. What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? Nothing. Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.

You've apparently missed the fact that your "Big Bang" is just as theoretical. That's the thing about theories; they are held until evidence supports discording them for a more accurate theory. "Big Bang" is yeaterday, and doesn't fit with new understanding of cosmic phenomenon. Quantum loop is the new theory that better fits with observable phenomenon.

You're really not understanding this. Are you. It's not my theory, it's your faith based manner of thought that's in question here.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

Science proves many things. For example: Did you know that neuroscientists have recently come to some interesting conclusions about human brain activity based on extensive research experimentation? It's now demonstrably certain that every human decision is influenced by emotion to one degree or another. Based on the available science: How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?

Care to provide a source for the research that suggests every decision is based on emotion?Contrary to your misconception, I have no emtional reaction to religion, or faith. The only one here trying to irrationally assign "faith" to observation is you.

You aren't very inquisitive. Try doing your own homework instead of waiting for your knowledge to be spoon fed.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

It's apparent to me that your knowledge of science is all superficial. Therefore any conclusions you might draw are based on your "faith" in scientific method.

Says the guy who is holding on to outdated theories.

The only theory I hang on to is the one about human behavior being so predictable.

 

[sealybobo]

When you ask the wtrong question? Yes. You want to know what happened before an event that never took place. Nothing happened, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place. What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? Nothing. Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.

You've apparently missed the fact that your "Big Bang" is just as theoretical. That's the thing about theories; they are held until evidence supports discording them for a more accurate theory. "Big Bang" is yeaterday, and doesn't fit with new understanding of cosmic phenomenon. Quantum loop is the new theory that better fits with observable phenomenon.

You're really not understanding this. Are you. It's not my theory, it's your faith based manner of thought that's in question here.

But look at how easily he is willing to give up on the big bang.

Science is going with logic evidence and reason. Are you familiar with the scientific method? Your God doesn't survive it's test. The big bang turns out didn't either. But at one time it's what we believed.

I like our ever changing book of what we know. Much better than the old testament or new.

 

[sealybobo]

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

It's apparent to me that your knowledge of science is all superficial. Therefore any conclusions you might draw are based on your "faith" in scientific method.

Says the guy who is holding on to outdated theories.

The only theory I hang on to is the one about human behavior being so predictable.

That reminds me of a thought I had the other day. We are just the smartest animal on this planet. We don't know if we are alone because we aren't smart enough to know that yet. We are still a very young new species just learning our place in the universe. We are very superstitious too. Look how people believe in angels ghosts and exorcisms.

Anyways, trilobites can stand extreme temperatures we can't.

Eagles see better, cheetah are faster, gorilla are stronger, deer hear better and dogs can smell better. Tortoise live 250 years

We are just animals.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.

You've apparently missed the fact that your "Big Bang" is just as theoretical. That's the thing about theories; they are held until evidence supports discording them for a more accurate theory. "Big Bang" is yeaterday, and doesn't fit with new understanding of cosmic phenomenon. Quantum loop is the new theory that better fits with observable phenomenon.

You're really not understanding this. Are you. It's not my theory, it's your faith based manner of thought that's in question here.

But look at how easily he is willing to give up on the big bang.

Science is going with logic evidence and reason. Are you familiar with the scientific method? Your God doesn't survive it's test. The big bang turns out didn't either. But at one time it's what we believed.

I like our ever changing book of what we know. Much better than the old testament or new.

Who's God are you talking about. Perhaps you'd like to point out where I make any kind of reference to God anywhere in this thread. Are all you pop culture atheists so afflicted with uncontrollable knee jerk?

 

[sealybobo]

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.

You've apparently missed the fact that your "Big Bang" is just as theoretical. That's the thing about theories; they are held until evidence supports discording them for a more accurate theory. "Big Bang" is yeaterday, and doesn't fit with new understanding of cosmic phenomenon. Quantum loop is the new theory that better fits with observable phenomenon.

You're really not understanding this. Are you. It's not my theory, it's your faith based manner of thought that's in question here.

But look at how easily he is willing to give up on the big bang.

Science is going with logic evidence and reason. Are you familiar with the scientific method? Your God doesn't survive it's test. The big bang turns out didn't either. But at one time it's what we believed.

I like our ever changing book of what we know. Much better than the old testament or new.

Who's God are you talking about. Perhaps you'd like to point out where I make any kind of reference to God anywhere in this thread. Are all you pop culture atheists so afflicted with uncontrollable knee jerk?

Well does anyone know what you are saying?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

It's apparent to me that your knowledge of science is all superficial. Therefore any conclusions you might draw are based on your "faith" in scientific method.

Says the guy who is holding on to outdated theories.

The only theory I hang on to is the one about human behavior being so predictable.

That reminds me of a thought I had the other day. We are just the smartest animal on this planet. We don't know if we are alone because we aren't smart enough to know that yet. We are still a very young new species just learning our place in the universe. We are very superstitious too. Look how people believe in angels ghosts and exorcisms.

Anyways, trilobites can stand extreme temperatures we can't.

Eagles see better, cheetah are faster, gorilla are stronger, deer hear better and dogs can smell better. Tortoise live 250 years

We are just animals.

Yet with our barely evolved chimp brains humanity is apparently the perfect perceptor of all things.

 

[sealybobo]

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

It's apparent to me that your knowledge of science is all superficial. Therefore any conclusions you might draw are based on your "faith" in scientific method.

Says the guy who is holding on to outdated theories.

The only theory I hang on to is the one about human behavior being so predictable.

That reminds me of a thought I had the other day. We are just the smartest animal on this planet. We don't know if we are alone because we aren't smart enough to know that yet. We are still a very young new species just learning our place in the universe. We are very superstitious too. Look how people believe in angels ghosts and exorcisms.

Anyways, trilobites can stand extreme temperatures we can't.

Eagles see better, cheetah are faster, gorilla are stronger, deer hear better and dogs can smell better. Tortoise live 250 years

We are just animals.

Yet with our barely evolved chimp brains humanity is apparently the perfect perceptor of all things.

Perfect? Wow. You think we are perfect? Did you see who we just elected?

We are not very smart and I think religion plays a part. Believing in nonsense is holding us back intellectually. If we believe Mary was a virgin we'll believe anything. Great example is how religious people don't typically believe in global warming. Why? Because God didn't prophecize it. How insane huh? But one example of how religion makes people dumb

 

[sealybobo]

Or religious people don't believe evolution because it contradicts their nonsense

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

It's apparent to me that your knowledge of science is all superficial. Therefore any conclusions you might draw are based on your "faith" in scientific method.

Says the guy who is holding on to outdated theories.

The only theory I hang on to is the one about human behavior being so predictable.

That reminds me of a thought I had the other day. We are just the smartest animal on this planet. We don't know if we are alone because we aren't smart enough to know that yet. We are still a very young new species just learning our place in the universe. We are very superstitious too. Look how people believe in angels ghosts and exorcisms.

Anyways, trilobites can stand extreme temperatures we can't.

Eagles see better, cheetah are faster, gorilla are stronger, deer hear better and dogs can smell better. Tortoise live 250 years

We are just animals.

Yet with our barely evolved chimp brains humanity is apparently the perfect perceptor of all things.

Perfect? Wow. You think we are perfect? Did you see who we just elected?

We are not very smart and I think religion plays a part. Believing in nonsense is holding us back intellectually. If we believe Mary was a virgin we'll believe anything. Great example is how religious people don't typically believe in global warming. Why? Because God didn't prophecize it. How insane huh? But one example of how religion makes people dumb

Not really getting this either. Are you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

for one thing the BB is just the most accepted theory that fits our observations of the Universe it is not a 100% proven fact yet if it ever will be.

Have you ever considered that people may not have the capability to completely understand the universe much like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra ?

Oh I agree with you Skull Pilot on that.

But it is just that there are both a whole lot of amateur scientists and also a few professional ones who have made Science their Religion.

That's my point.

If Muhammed digs deeply enough into his own Philosophy to deal with the dilemma of who created his BB then I think he will see he needs more than just Science in his life. At the very least he needs Philosophy. And this will lead him at least to Deism I think.

How could the BB create itself? If it can than IT is GOD.

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

The evidence is Creation itself.

No it's not.

Just because we don't know how the universe was created, if it was actually created at all, does not mean some supreme being is responsible for it

You are confusing evidence for proof. If you create something tangible, it can be used as evidence.

We don't know who or what created the universe or if it was created at all for that matter

The existence of a thing is not proof of anything but that it exists.

 

[Skull Pilot]

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

So this is your current mythology then ?!

Very brilliant.

God and Gods are ancient concepts that predate history.

Therefore we do not know where the notion of God or Gods came from and therefore it is impossible to scientifically and logically determine where it came from and whether it is due to REAL God/Gods or not.

In the meantime if this personal mythology works for you then fine. So be it.

Sorry but no. Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't

And yet we still believe.

And you will believe whatever you want regardless of anything anyone else says , whether there is evidence or not and that's your choice

I have made a different choice

Since the beginning of time, belief in a higher power has always existed and continues so today. The debate over the existence of God has always persisted too. You are not making a new argument.

Your belief that man believes in God because of man's inability to explain the physical world around him is wrong. It is man's ability to see order and connection which makes him believe in a higher power, not his inability to explain it.

I'm happy about your choice. You seem to have a need to validate your choice.

The belief in gods stemmed from human fear which was brought on by ignorance of the workings of the natural world. As we came to understand the world around us we discarded countless gods.

Now we only have 2 existential concepts to which we do not know the answer.
How did the universe get here and what if anything happens after we die

So we still have one god believed to be responsible for creation of the universe and who decides if you are eternally rewarded or punished after death

If we can ever explain the these concepts the last god will be discarded just like all the others

You can cop out intellectually and just say, "God did everything and that's all we need to know"

Or you can actually question everything and search for answers.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

And you will never find that evidence unless you go looking for it which is why you are intellectually dead.

Pop culture atheists seem completely unaware of the fact that their thought processes are exactly like those of religious fundamentalists.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

And you will never find that evidence unless you go looking for it which is why you are intellectually dead.

Pop culture atheists seem completely unaware of the fact that their thought processes are exactly like those of religious fundamentalists.

Exactly and they continue to deny it

 

[Czernobog]

When you ask the wtrong question? Yes. You want to know what happened before an event that never took place. Nothing happened, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place. What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? Nothing. Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.

You've apparently missed the fact that your "Big Bang" is just as theoretical. That's the thing about theories; they are held until evidence supports discording them for a more accurate theory. "Big Bang" is yeaterday, and doesn't fit with new understanding of cosmic phenomenon. Quantum loop is the new theory that better fits with observable phenomenon.

You're really not understanding this. Are you. It's not my theory, it's your faith based manner of thought that's in question here.

I understand perfectly. You are so insecure in your faith in myths, and fairy tales, that you need to justify your irrational magical thinking by trying to assign your primitive thought processes on everyone else. That's fine. Feel free. Just don't expect the rational people to make it easey by agreeing witth your flawed thought processes.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.

You've apparently missed the fact that your "Big Bang" is just as theoretical. That's the thing about theories; they are held until evidence supports discording them for a more accurate theory. "Big Bang" is yeaterday, and doesn't fit with new understanding of cosmic phenomenon. Quantum loop is the new theory that better fits with observable phenomenon.

You're really not understanding this. Are you. It's not my theory, it's your faith based manner of thought that's in question here.

I understand perfectly. You are so insecure in your faith in myths, and fairy tales, that you need to justify your irrational magical thinking by trying to assign your primitive thought processes on everyone else. That's fine. Feel free. Just don't expect the rational people to make it easey by agreeing witth your flawed thought processes.

Rational people? Let me know when you meet one.

 

[Czernobog]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

Science proves many things. For example: Did you know that neuroscientists have recently come to some interesting conclusions about human brain activity based on extensive research experimentation? It's now demonstrably certain that every human decision is influenced by emotion to one degree or another. Based on the available science: How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?

Care to provide a source for the research that suggests every decision is based on emotion?Contrary to your misconception, I have no emtional reaction to religion, or faith. The only one here trying to irrationally assign "faith" to observation is you.

You aren't very inquisitive. Try doing your own homework instead of waiting for your knowledge to be spoon fed.

Not my job. You have made a claim about some alleged paper. It is on you to provide surces for your claims. Experience teaches me that when someone refuses to do that, it is because they are full of shit.

 

[Czernobog]

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

And you will never find that evidence unless you go looking for it which is why you are intellectually dead.

Pop culture atheists seem completely unaware of the fact that their thought processes are exactly like those of religious fundamentalists.

Only according to your primitive flawed thought processes.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

Science proves many things. For example: Did you know that neuroscientists have recently come to some interesting conclusions about human brain activity based on extensive research experimentation? It's now demonstrably certain that every human decision is influenced by emotion to one degree or another. Based on the available science: How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?

Care to provide a source for the research that suggests every decision is based on emotion?Contrary to your misconception, I have no emtional reaction to religion, or faith. The only one here trying to irrationally assign "faith" to observation is you.

You aren't very inquisitive. Try doing your own homework instead of waiting for your knowledge to be spoon fed.

Not my job. You have made a claim about some alleged paper. It is on you to provide surces for your claims. Experience teaches me that when someone refuses to do that, it is because they are full of shit.

Experience evidently hasn't taught you how to do your own research. My theory is that you won't investigate anything that falls outside your small parameters of understanding or disputes your strident fundamentalist mindset.