Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Iceweasel]

Either God exists, and there is objective evidence to support that claim, or he doesn't, and there isn't.

And if such objective evidence exists, that means, by definition, that it is observable by everyone, period. Full stop. Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.

Your problem is that you need to greater simplify the question in order to hold your view. The fact is we are here. The universe exists. You have no answers and can only quote various theories. All are potential possibilities to the atheist, except god. Atheists are among the most fundamentalist believers out there.

Not true. God is absolutely a possibility. It is just a possiblity that requires evidence.

How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.

You're right. I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for you that's fine. However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God for atheists. I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists for atheists. The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. The atheist will concede the possiblity of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, for the Atheist.

I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.

 

[ding]

Today is that day. Atheism being equivalent to intellectual death is not the same thing as dying.

No. Atheism does not teach you that. Atheism makes you deify yourself. Atheism's basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. Atheism leads to the practice of moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Atheism's hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. Atheists can be identified by an external locus of control. Atheists worship science but are the first to reject it.

Praying to God promotes thankfulness, humility and charity and alters the fabric of my identity to allow me to overcome obstacles and grow as a human being. When we pray, God does not do it for us, He gives us the strength to do it for our self.

Where did you get all this? I have values and morality beyond mortal pleasures. Except abortion there's not much difference between what you and I believe. Maybe that's because it's common sense.

Jews used to not be allowed to eat shrimp. Today they can eat shrimp. I guess they do whatever makes them feel good too even though their God specifically said don't eat shrimp.

No. You don't. You have relative values which are subject to change. Those aren't values. Those are conveniences. You keep making silly littel fringe arguments which have no bearing on the subject. Shrimp? Really? Shrimp? When you can tell me that you believe it is wrong to end a human life, let me know, Ok? Then I'll change my opinion on your lack of values.

So... You believe it wrong to end a human life? Period, full stop? Sure you want to make such a definitive statement? Because, if so, it will take about 2 seconds for me to demonstrate that you are either a moron, or a liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Are you going to school me on this or not? I'm still waiting.

I am waiting for you to acknowledge that this is your position.

See post #269.

 

[ding]

I know, he seems to be set in the position that unless God reveals himself on CNN or can be examined under a microscope in a laboratory he must not exist..

Pretty stupid for someone who likes to think that he is smarter than everyone else.

I know. How stupid to expect evidence to accept the existence of a thing. Now, excuse me while I ride off on my pink unicorn, to go have lunch with queen of the fairies, and the Bandersnatch, with Harry, Hermoine, and Ron.

If you want evidence of God you have to become a creature capable of perceiving God. The way is clear. Follow the instruction given in the law knowing that the words are figurative, the subjects hidden. Its easy. You probably are already doing much of it naturally. Do this, don't do that. Don't bow down and worship the work of human hands. Do not speak falsely in the name of God. Do not mislead others through religious deception. Do not eat the vile and contaminating teaching of unclean creatures that do not ruminate, think deeply. Do not mix dairy with meat meaning do not mix what is taught to sustain children with what is taught to adults who have teeth., etc., How hard is that?

Cleanse your thoughts. Purify your consciousness, what the ancients called the soul, and be refined, then diligently stand guard over the purity of your own mind for the rest of your days. Would you have a problem with that?

Do it and God will make himself known to you and you will have far more evidence than you can handle... If you apply an additional effort, you might even see the kingdom of God in power and find out what eternal life is before you die... .

You have something better to do?

Than waste my time searching for a god that no one can find scientific evidence of? Yeah I have plenty of better things to do

But we do have evidence. What He created can be used as evidence. You keep confusing proof for evidence. Clearly. if at a later date you meet God, He will point to what He created as evidence for His existence, right? Your problem is that you don't accept this evidence as proof, but you keep illogically believing that there can be no evidence. If you start with the belief that everything is connected to reach a goal or serve a purpose, then you must evaluate everything as evidence before a finding of fact (i.e. proof) can be made. You are intellectually dead because you make no effort to do so. You just dismiss it all.

Yeah, you keep trying that, and failing. You wanna try again, or are you just going to concede here?

Can you explain where I failed in the logic that I wrote in post #268?

 

[Czernobog]

Let me know the day my comment is proven wrong.

And as for atheism being a dead end. That's life. All life leads to a dead end.

Atheism teaches us to appreciate the time you have now. Don't cope with a shitty life in hopes of an afterlife. That's what religion asks you to do.

What you pray for God will give go be able to cope in this world we live

She should have been praying to change her woes not cope with them. Anyways it's an arrestive development song and the lyrics stuck.

Today is that day. Atheism being equivalent to intellectual death is not the same thing as dying.

No. Atheism does not teach you that. Atheism makes you deify yourself. Atheism's basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. Atheism leads to the practice of moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Atheism's hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. Atheists can be identified by an external locus of control. Atheists worship science but are the first to reject it.

Praying to God promotes thankfulness, humility and charity and alters the fabric of my identity to allow me to overcome obstacles and grow as a human being. When we pray, God does not do it for us, He gives us the strength to do it for our self.

Where did you get all this? I have values and morality beyond mortal pleasures. Except abortion there's not much difference between what you and I believe. Maybe that's because it's common sense.

Jews used to not be allowed to eat shrimp. Today they can eat shrimp. I guess they do whatever makes them feel good too even though their God specifically said don't eat shrimp.

No. You don't. You have relative values which are subject to change. Those aren't values. Those are conveniences. You keep making silly littel fringe arguments which have no bearing on the subject. Shrimp? Really? Shrimp? When you can tell me that you believe it is wrong to end a human life, let me know, Ok? Then I'll change my opinion on your lack of values.

So... You believe it wrong to end a human life? Period, full stop? Sure you want to make such a definitive statement? Because, if so, it will take about 2 seconds for me to demonstrate that you are either a moron, or a liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, I believe it is wrong to end a human life at all times. Please proceed. It's not like I have not already thought this through.

Right, then. So, it is your position that war is wrong under any, and all circumstances? Really? Killing Osama Bin Laden was wrong? Really?

 

[sealybobo]

I started a couple of threads demonstrating the differences between atheism, and theism, and was attacked for "hating Christians".

When you throw water on someone in a deep sleep their reflex is to attack.

When you challenge those who maintain irrational beliefs with rational questions or well known facts, you become the enemy.

Might have been more interesting if he could even begin to examine his own thought processes.

I know, he seems to be set in the position that unless God reveals himself on CNN or can be examined under a microscope in a laboratory he must not exist..

Pretty stupid for someone who likes to think that he is smarter than everyone else.

I know. How stupid to expect evidence to accept the existence of a thing. Now, excuse me while I ride off on my pink unicorn, to go have lunch with queen of the fairies, and the Bandersnatch, with Harry, Hermoine, and Ron.

If you want evidence of God you have to become a creature capable of perceiving God. The way is clear. Follow the instruction given in the law knowing that the words are figurative, the subjects hidden. Its easy. You probably are already doing much of it naturally. Do this, don't do that. Don't bow down and worship the work of human hands. Do not speak falsely in the name of God. Do not mislead others through religious deception. Do not eat the vile and contaminating teaching of unclean creatures that do not ruminate, think deeply. Do not mix dairy with meat meaning do not mix what is taught to sustain children with what is taught to adults who have teeth., etc., How hard is that?

Cleanse your thoughts. Purify your consciousness, what the ancients called the soul, and be refined, then diligently stand guard over the purity of your own mind for the rest of your days. Would you have a problem with that?

Do it and God will make himself known to you and you will have far more evidence than you can handle... If you apply an additional effort, you might even see the kingdom of God in power and find out what eternal life is before you die... .

You have something better to do?

And cherry pick. Because you will decide some of the rules are OK to break. And you'll learn you can break rules as long as you are a member. For example if you eat a shrimp God will forgive. And you can interpret things the way it suits you.

And if you do all these things eventually you'll convince yourself God is real and even if he's not you'll feel too guilty to even think it. Better to be safe than sorry.

Many people believe in God but do none of the things you suggest. How come belief comes so easy for so many who aren't doing these things?

 

[ding]

Today is that day. Atheism being equivalent to intellectual death is not the same thing as dying.

No. Atheism does not teach you that. Atheism makes you deify yourself. Atheism's basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. Atheism leads to the practice of moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Atheism's hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. Atheists can be identified by an external locus of control. Atheists worship science but are the first to reject it.

Praying to God promotes thankfulness, humility and charity and alters the fabric of my identity to allow me to overcome obstacles and grow as a human being. When we pray, God does not do it for us, He gives us the strength to do it for our self.

Where did you get all this? I have values and morality beyond mortal pleasures. Except abortion there's not much difference between what you and I believe. Maybe that's because it's common sense.

Jews used to not be allowed to eat shrimp. Today they can eat shrimp. I guess they do whatever makes them feel good too even though their God specifically said don't eat shrimp.

No. You don't. You have relative values which are subject to change. Those aren't values. Those are conveniences. You keep making silly littel fringe arguments which have no bearing on the subject. Shrimp? Really? Shrimp? When you can tell me that you believe it is wrong to end a human life, let me know, Ok? Then I'll change my opinion on your lack of values.

So... You believe it wrong to end a human life? Period, full stop? Sure you want to make such a definitive statement? Because, if so, it will take about 2 seconds for me to demonstrate that you are either a moron, or a liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, I believe it is wrong to end a human life at all times. Please proceed. It's not like I have not already thought this through.

Right, then. So, it is your position that war is wrong under any, and all circumstances? Really? Killing Osama Bin Laden was wrong? Really?

Yep. Killing is wrong but we will still do it. No need to justify that it was right. It is possible for honest men to do dishonest things and still be honest men. It is possible for moral men to do immoral things and still be moral men. It is only through rationalization that moral men become immoral. If you killed someone who was raping your wife you would feel two things; you would feel relief for helping your wife and you would feel remorse for killing a man. If you didn't, you should question what kind of man you are. It is rationalization which leads men to continue to do evil. If we stop the rationalizing then our behaviors change and we would all be moral and have no need for killing.

 

[sealybobo]

Jews used to not be allowed to eat shrimp. Today they can eat shrimp. I guess they do whatever makes them feel good too even though their God specifically said don't eat shrimp.

Moses said not to eat shrimp (prawns).

St. Peter said it was ok though.

If the old testament is flawed why believe the spin-off?

 

[sealybobo]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

There is no conclusive evidence that the "big bang" ever happened in the first place.

Ok fine.

So you don't believe in the BB ?? Is that what you are asserting ??

Then if not how did you get here, and your peoples before you, all the way back to the first DNA strand in the primordial soup where life on Earth began? What caused that ??

Tell us what your own Science tells you ?!

All life crawled out of the water. Our original ancestors didn't need mommy's and daddy's. They multiplied on their own then eventually started mating.

Or do you believe God waved his hand and fully grown giraffe, porcupines, goats, dogs, tigers, snake, bird magically appeared.

Which theory do you believe?

First before you answer, only 1 is an actual theory

Someone had to create the Big Bang.

Just as Someone had to create the first amoeba.

Things don't just happen on their own.

Someone? That's pretty vague. Is that how you concluded there must be a God?

Then you should also believe the thing that created the universe is a natural thing. In other words no God necessary. Your parents created you right? So everything created has a natural source. Something physical and explainable created it. For example we come from stars. So we know how the moon got there. No God had to poof it there.

Just cause you don't know what creates universes doesn't mean a God.

And of course your God doesn't need a creator, right?

 

[Czernobog]

Either God exists, and there is objective evidence to support that claim, or he doesn't, and there isn't.

And if such objective evidence exists, that means, by definition, that it is observable by everyone, period. Full stop. Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.

Your problem is that you need to greater simplify the question in order to hold your view. The fact is we are here. The universe exists. You have no answers and can only quote various theories. All are potential possibilities to the atheist, except god. Atheists are among the most fundamentalist believers out there.

Not true. God is absolutely a possibility. It is just a possiblity that requires evidence.

How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.

You're right. I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for you that's fine. However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God for atheists. I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists for atheists. The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. The atheist will concede the possiblity of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, for the Atheist.

I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.

The problem is that you are being overly simplistic:

An "Agnostic" is njust an atheist who is trying to be diplomatic. Atheists, whether they are an agnostic atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist, are still atheists. They're default position is that there is no God, and requobjective evidence to be persuaded to nmove from that position. You seem to think that Atheists are absolute, and immovable in teir position. They're not.

Welll...I mean, most of us are, but only because ini the some 3-million-year history of the existence of man, no objective evidence has yet been provided to prove the existence of divinity. So, it's not that we are unwilling to be moved from our position by objective evidence; rather it is that we have a well-earned skeptisicm that such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

However, we atheists, whether gnostic, or agnostic, are more than willing to assess any objective evidence when provided. We're just waiting for that objective evidence. I am an atheist. I am also more than willing to concede that I was mistaken about my atheism, just as soon as someone provides me with actual objective evidence of the existance of divinity.

 

[Czernobog]

Our best understanding may not be that good you know.

It is arrogance to think we are even capable of understanding everything in the universe. We do not fully understand the human brain either.


Just like it is arrogance to believe we are created in the image of some god

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

Let me re-phrase my question for you. Scientific evidence exists for the belief that the universe began through an event called the big bang. Do you know what this scientific evidence is? Yes or no? Now do you understand the question?

You are quite right. There is such evidence. Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and cannot account. Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory. Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?

 

[Iceweasel]

Your problem is that you need to greater simplify the question in order to hold your view. The fact is we are here. The universe exists. You have no answers and can only quote various theories. All are potential possibilities to the atheist, except god. Atheists are among the most fundamentalist believers out there.

Not true. God is absolutely a possibility. It is just a possiblity that requires evidence.

How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.

You're right. I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for you that's fine. However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God for atheists. I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists for atheists. The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. The atheist will concede the possiblity of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, for the Atheist.

I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.

The problem is that you are being overly simplistic:

An "Agnostic" is njust an atheist who is trying to be diplomatic. Atheists, whether they are an agnostic atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist, are still atheists. They're default position is that there is no God, and requobjective evidence to be persuaded to nmove from that position. You seem to think that Atheists are absolute, and immovable in teir position. They're not.

Welll...I mean, most of us are, but only because ini the some 3-million-year history of the existence of man, no objective evidence has yet been provided to prove the existence of divinity. So, it's not that we are unwilling to be moved from our position by objective evidence; rather it is that we have a well-earned skeptisicm that such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

However, we atheists, whether gnostic, or agnostic, are more than willing to assess any objective evidence when provided. We're just waiting for that objective evidence. I am an atheist. I am also more than willing to concede that I was mistaken about my atheism, just as soon as someone provides me with actual objective evidence of the existance of divinity.

I'm not the one that needs pictures to express my position. You can spin but you can't change any facts. If you make statements you can't back up you are making a declaration of faith. You can't say there is no god with any credibility. If you do you are insane, dishonest or not particularly bright.

You have self identified yourself as an agnostic so I'm going with dishonest.

 

[Czernobog]

Where did you get all this? I have values and morality beyond mortal pleasures. Except abortion there's not much difference between what you and I believe. Maybe that's because it's common sense.

Jews used to not be allowed to eat shrimp. Today they can eat shrimp. I guess they do whatever makes them feel good too even though their God specifically said don't eat shrimp.

No. You don't. You have relative values which are subject to change. Those aren't values. Those are conveniences. You keep making silly littel fringe arguments which have no bearing on the subject. Shrimp? Really? Shrimp? When you can tell me that you believe it is wrong to end a human life, let me know, Ok? Then I'll change my opinion on your lack of values.

So... You believe it wrong to end a human life? Period, full stop? Sure you want to make such a definitive statement? Because, if so, it will take about 2 seconds for me to demonstrate that you are either a moron, or a liar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, I believe it is wrong to end a human life at all times. Please proceed. It's not like I have not already thought this through.

Right, then. So, it is your position that war is wrong under any, and all circumstances? Really? Killing Osama Bin Laden was wrong? Really?

Yep. Killing is wrong but we will still do it. No need to justify that it was right. It is possible for honest men to do dishonest things and still be honest men. It is possible for moral men to do immoral things and still be moral men. It is only through rationalization that moral men become immoral. If you killed someone who was raping your wife you would feel two things; you would feel relief for helping your wife and you would feel remorse for killing a man. If you didn't, you should question what kind of man you are. It is rationalization which leads men to continue to do evil. If we stop the rationalizing then our behaviors change and we would all be moral and have no need for killing.

So the moral thing for America, and the American president to do in 1941 would have been to do nothing, and allow Hitler to take over Europe, and continue his genocide of Jews? Really? That would have been moral?

 

[Iceweasel]

You are quite right. There is such evidence. Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and cannot account. Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory. Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?

"Being replaced"? That's another statement of faith.

 

[Czernobog]

Not true. God is absolutely a possibility. It is just a possiblity that requires evidence.

How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.

You're right. I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for you that's fine. However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God for atheists. I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists for atheists. The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. The atheist will concede the possiblity of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, for the Atheist.

I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.

The problem is that you are being overly simplistic:

An "Agnostic" is njust an atheist who is trying to be diplomatic. Atheists, whether they are an agnostic atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist, are still atheists. They're default position is that there is no God, and requobjective evidence to be persuaded to nmove from that position. You seem to think that Atheists are absolute, and immovable in teir position. They're not.

Welll...I mean, most of us are, but only because ini the some 3-million-year history of the existence of man, no objective evidence has yet been provided to prove the existence of divinity. So, it's not that we are unwilling to be moved from our position by objective evidence; rather it is that we have a well-earned skeptisicm that such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

However, we atheists, whether gnostic, or agnostic, are more than willing to assess any objective evidence when provided. We're just waiting for that objective evidence. I am an atheist. I am also more than willing to concede that I was mistaken about my atheism, just as soon as someone provides me with actual objective evidence of the existance of divinity.

I'm not the one that needs pictures to express my position. You can spin but you can't change any facts. If you make statements you can't back up you are making a declaration of faith. You can't say there is no god with any credibility. If you do you are insane, dishonest or not particularly bright.

You have self identified yourself as an agnostic so I'm going with dishonest.

I haven't identified myself as agnostic you have, because you want to justify your hatred of atheists.

 

[ding]

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

Let me re-phrase my question for you. Scientific evidence exists for the belief that the universe began through an event called the big bang. Do you know what this scientific evidence is? Yes or no? Now do you understand the question?

You are quite right. There is such evidence. Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and cannot account. Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory. Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?

No, and I don't care to know because it does not change the fact that the universe had a beginning. It is the beginning and all that has happened since the beginning that is the evidence. Not what happened before it. None of our equations will ever be able to prove what happened before the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second. No observations we ever be able to tell us what cause the beginning. All that we know is that there was a beginning and that that beginning has not been eternal or infinite in time. There is a finite expansion of the universe at this point in time.

 

[Iceweasel]

How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.

You're right. I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for you that's fine. However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God for atheists. I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists for atheists. The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. The atheist will concede the possiblity of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, for the Atheist.

I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.

The problem is that you are being overly simplistic:

An "Agnostic" is njust an atheist who is trying to be diplomatic. Atheists, whether they are an agnostic atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist, are still atheists. They're default position is that there is no God, and requobjective evidence to be persuaded to nmove from that position. You seem to think that Atheists are absolute, and immovable in teir position. They're not.

Welll...I mean, most of us are, but only because ini the some 3-million-year history of the existence of man, no objective evidence has yet been provided to prove the existence of divinity. So, it's not that we are unwilling to be moved from our position by objective evidence; rather it is that we have a well-earned skeptisicm that such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

However, we atheists, whether gnostic, or agnostic, are more than willing to assess any objective evidence when provided. We're just waiting for that objective evidence. I am an atheist. I am also more than willing to concede that I was mistaken about my atheism, just as soon as someone provides me with actual objective evidence of the existance of divinity.

I'm not the one that needs pictures to express my position. You can spin but you can't change any facts. If you make statements you can't back up you are making a declaration of faith. You can't say there is no god with any credibility. If you do you are insane, dishonest or not particularly bright.

You have self identified yourself as an agnostic so I'm going with dishonest.

I haven't identified myself as agnostic you have, because you want to justify your hatred of atheists.

I never said I hated atheists. You're a liar. And if you'll recall I started out saying atheists were liars. You said you recognize the possibility of a god, that makes you an agnostic. That's English. Learn it.

 

[Czernobog]

You are quite right. There is such evidence. Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and cannot account. Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory. Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?

"Being replaced"? That's another statement of faith.

If you say so...

 

[Czernobog]

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

Let me re-phrase my question for you. Scientific evidence exists for the belief that the universe began through an event called the big bang. Do you know what this scientific evidence is? Yes or no? Now do you understand the question?

You are quite right. There is such evidence. Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and cannot account. Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory. Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?

No, and I don't care to know because it does not change the fact that the universe had a beginning. It is the beginning and all that has happened since the beginning that is the evidence. Not what happened before it. None of our equations will ever be able to prove what happened before the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second. No observations we ever be able to tell us what cause the beginning. All that we know is that there was a beginning and that that beginning has not been eternal or infinite in time. There is a finite expansion of the universe at this point in time.

Uh, no it didn't, that is rather the point. No beginning, no need for God.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the observation of expansion from a central source, all matter is traveling at a finite angle - the matter will return to its origin as a mirror image causing recompaction till the new singularity again causes its expansion. Boomerang Theory.

.

I see. And your proof for this is what?

.

I see. And your proof for this is what?

ask the gunnery sargent, trajectory in a vacuum from a spherical expulsion .... how about it engineer, is all matter traveling in a straight line or en/mass accelerating to reconvene in unison 0.5(X)APEX (finite angle). the universe within the Cosmos.

.

.

That doesn't sound like proof. Do you have any proof?

.

That doesn't sound like proof. Do you have any proof?

maybe an image will help you


View attachment 104783


Isaac Newton had the same problem, with people like you bing.

without garavity, the above example the trajectory traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its origin and reload itself in the guns breach. the same for the celestrial bodies from the moment of Singularity.

.

Ummmm... that isn't proof, dumbass, that is theory. Do you have any fucking proof? The only proof we have is for the beginning. Do you need for me to show it to you so that you can understand the difference between proof and theory?

.

Ummmm... that isn't proof, dumbass, that is theory.

the trajectory of celestial matter is a loop, en mass, in unison along a finite angle and answers the question what happened the Tuesday before Singularity, matter was still compacting ... if bing got this far it also explains how the BB is cyclical.

.

 

[Czernobog]

You're right. I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for you that's fine. However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God for atheists. I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists for atheists. The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. The atheist will concede the possiblity of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, for the Atheist.

I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.

The problem is that you are being overly simplistic:

An "Agnostic" is njust an atheist who is trying to be diplomatic. Atheists, whether they are an agnostic atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist, are still atheists. They're default position is that there is no God, and requobjective evidence to be persuaded to nmove from that position. You seem to think that Atheists are absolute, and immovable in teir position. They're not.

Welll...I mean, most of us are, but only because ini the some 3-million-year history of the existence of man, no objective evidence has yet been provided to prove the existence of divinity. So, it's not that we are unwilling to be moved from our position by objective evidence; rather it is that we have a well-earned skeptisicm that such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

However, we atheists, whether gnostic, or agnostic, are more than willing to assess any objective evidence when provided. We're just waiting for that objective evidence. I am an atheist. I am also more than willing to concede that I was mistaken about my atheism, just as soon as someone provides me with actual objective evidence of the existance of divinity.

I'm not the one that needs pictures to express my position. You can spin but you can't change any facts. If you make statements you can't back up you are making a declaration of faith. You can't say there is no god with any credibility. If you do you are insane, dishonest or not particularly bright.

You have self identified yourself as an agnostic so I'm going with dishonest.

I haven't identified myself as agnostic you have, because you want to justify your hatred of atheists.

I never said I hated atheists. You're a liar. And if you'll recall I started out saying atheists were liars. You said you recognize the possibility of a god, that makes you an agnostic. That's English. Learn it.

You're attitude towards atheists is clear in your misrepresentation of who atheists are, and your assumption that you know how "all athiests" think. Just because you want to dishonestly pretend like you have no animosity, it doesn't mean that the animosity isn't obvious.