Atheism takes courage

[Crixus]

Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.

Atheism is not for the weak.

Atheism is just another religion. If y’all were so damn confident then you would not have to tell everyone how great you feel about it all the ******* time. Y’all are worse then born again Christians and AA members with your damn preaching.

 

[GreenBean]

not a single shred of objective, observable, quantifiable, verifiable evidence.

See Biocentrism

Biocentrism is a philosophy, not a empirical evidence. "is an ethical point of view that extends inherent value to all living things." It is empirical evidence of nothing.

Uh ... no .... Biocentrism is not a Philosophy. It is a Sound Scientific theory from a renowned researcher.

Philosophy is a study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. A Religion can be a philosophy based on belief that doesn't make it scientific. Theory is a system of ideas that is intended to explain something usually based on disciplined objective research. This is the key difference between philosophy and theory.




Robert Lanza, M.D. is currently Head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine, and is Chief Scientific Officer of the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. His current research focuses on stem cells and regenerative medicine and their potential to provide therapies for some of the world's most deadly and debilitating conditions.

And his biocentric universe is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - one that has yet to be even tested. So, tell you what. You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it. Until then, it is just one of hundreds of pseudo-scientific ramblings attempting to make superstition sound reasonable.

You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it.

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

 

[GreenBean]

not a single shred of objective, observable, quantifiable, verifiable evidence.

See Biocentrism

Biocentrism is a philosophy, not a empirical evidence. "is an ethical point of view that extends inherent value to all living things." It is empirical evidence of nothing.

Uh ... no .... Biocentrism is not a Philosophy. It is a Sound Scientific theory from a renowned researcher.

Philosophy is a study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. A Religion can be a philosophy based on belief that doesn't make it scientific. Theory is a system of ideas that is intended to explain something usually based on disciplined objective research. This is the key difference between philosophy and theory.




Robert Lanza, M.D. is currently Head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine, and is Chief Scientific Officer of the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. His current research focuses on stem cells and regenerative medicine and their potential to provide therapies for some of the world's most deadly and debilitating conditions.

And his biocentric universe is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - one that has yet to be even tested. So, tell you what. You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it. Until then, it is just one of hundreds of pseudo-scientific ramblings attempting to make superstition sound reasonable.

You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it.

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

Intelligent Design vs. Chaos
There are no Atheists in Fox Holes

 

[Czernobog]

Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.

Atheism is not for the weak.

Atheism is just another religion. If y’all were so damn confident then you would not have to tell everyone how great you feel about it all the ******* time. Y’all are worse then born again Christians and AA members with your damn preaching.

Yes, atheism is a religion, like abstinence is a sexual position. You're right. How dare anyone expect intelligent rational beings to actually employ reason, and logic in their thought processes. That's just silly!

 

[Czernobog]

See Biocentrism

Biocentrism is a philosophy, not a empirical evidence. "is an ethical point of view that extends inherent value to all living things." It is empirical evidence of nothing.

Uh ... no .... Biocentrism is not a Philosophy. It is a Sound Scientific theory from a renowned researcher.

Philosophy is a study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. A Religion can be a philosophy based on belief that doesn't make it scientific. Theory is a system of ideas that is intended to explain something usually based on disciplined objective research. This is the key difference between philosophy and theory.




Robert Lanza, M.D. is currently Head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine, and is Chief Scientific Officer of the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. His current research focuses on stem cells and regenerative medicine and their potential to provide therapies for some of the world's most deadly and debilitating conditions.

And his biocentric universe is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - one that has yet to be even tested. So, tell you what. You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it. Until then, it is just one of hundreds of pseudo-scientific ramblings attempting to make superstition sound reasonable.

You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it.

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

Intelligent Design vs. Chaos
There are no Atheists in Fox Holes

Except there are. A lot of us, as a matter of fact. And Intelligent Design isn't even a proper hypothesis. It is pure pseudo-science attempting to inject religion into high school science classes.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Fairy Tale #1: In The Beginning.

So if I get this right, God (Mr. Yahweh) created the Universe 13.8 billion years ago but eventually got tired and bored with it. Fast forward to some 4.5 billion years ago and He added to His real estate empire by creating The Earth (as well as the Sun and the rest of the solar system). Ultimately He got bored with this hunk of sterile rock and so some 4 billion years ago He created little microbes for His amusement, but ultimately after a few billion years He got bored with them too - they weren't very good company or worshippers. So some 500 - 600 million years ago He upped the ante and created multi-cellular critters, and then other types of multi-cellular critters, etc., etc., etc, all of which also proved to be rather indifferent company and didn't worship Him either. What a bummer! Then at long, long, long last comes His "Eureka" moment (several million years ago) and He created those primate 'humans' and ultimately He evolved them into modern humans some 200,000 years ago. Bad mistake! To make a long temporal story even longer, He almost immediately thereafter regretted His creation of humans (and of multi-cellular critters too) and drowned nearly the whole lot of them. So much for His omniscience!

So it takes God a minimum of 13.8 billion years to get around to creating (and then nearly destroying) the alleged pinnacle of His creation (i.e. - us). How likely is that scenario? Damned unlikely for a real deity!

Atheism's Arguments Against God? | Closer to Truth

Do not confuse the 'scriptures' of primitive man with modern theism. Yes they are fairy Tales - and your point is ??

Dude, I am not a Christian and have written and co-authored articles that challenge the existence of Jesus. I believed in the Bible up till I was about 10 or 11 years old at most. It is primitive narrative that evokes political agendas of the time melded with nature worship, sun gods and even more primitive beliefs. I have no intent of defending it . You do understand the diff. between theism and bible thumpers do you not ?

You do understand the diff. between theism and bible thumpers do you not ?

No I don't. Why don't you give us a hint?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.

Atheism is not for the weak.

Atheism is just another religion. If y’all were so damn confident then you would not have to tell everyone how great you feel about it all the ******* time. Y’all are worse then born again Christians and AA members with your damn preaching.

Naw, atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of a creator God.

Now Science is the one true religion

 

[Crixus]

Just a bit of insight on what it means to be an atheist. It's actually easier to allow one's self to believe in God than it is to be an atheist. Being an atheist means there is no Devil to blame, no afterlife to reunite with loved ones, no personal cosmic bodyguard, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's thoughts, actions, and prosperity, or lack thereof, lack of acceptance from a religion infused society, and no easy explanation for our existence.

Atheism is not for the weak.

Atheism is just another religion. If y’all were so damn confident then you would not have to tell everyone how great you feel about it all the ******* time. Y’all are worse then born again Christians and AA members with your damn preaching.

Naw, atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of a creator God.

Now Science is the one true religion

Maybe I did miscommunicate. I’m sick of the insecurities of zealots be they atheists, Christians or scientists. Come to think of it, Scientist, Buddhist and Muslims are the only ones so far who haven’t hassled me.

 

[Crixus]

Biocentrism is a philosophy, not a empirical evidence. "is an ethical point of view that extends inherent value to all living things." It is empirical evidence of nothing.

Uh ... no .... Biocentrism is not a Philosophy. It is a Sound Scientific theory from a renowned researcher.

Philosophy is a study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. A Religion can be a philosophy based on belief that doesn't make it scientific. Theory is a system of ideas that is intended to explain something usually based on disciplined objective research. This is the key difference between philosophy and theory.




Robert Lanza, M.D. is currently Head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine, and is Chief Scientific Officer of the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. His current research focuses on stem cells and regenerative medicine and their potential to provide therapies for some of the world's most deadly and debilitating conditions.

And his biocentric universe is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - one that has yet to be even tested. So, tell you what. You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it. Until then, it is just one of hundreds of pseudo-scientific ramblings attempting to make superstition sound reasonable.

You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it.

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

Intelligent Design vs. Chaos
There are no Atheists in Fox Holes

Except there are. A lot of us, as a matter of fact. And Intelligent Design isn't even a proper hypothesis. It is pure pseudo-science attempting to inject religion into high school science classes.

You mean like Darwin’s theory? Is that pseudo a Ian s to or rock solid?

 

[Czernobog]

Uh ... no .... Biocentrism is not a Philosophy. It is a Sound Scientific theory from a renowned researcher.

Philosophy is a study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. A Religion can be a philosophy based on belief that doesn't make it scientific. Theory is a system of ideas that is intended to explain something usually based on disciplined objective research. This is the key difference between philosophy and theory.




Robert Lanza, M.D. is currently Head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine, and is Chief Scientific Officer of the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. His current research focuses on stem cells and regenerative medicine and their potential to provide therapies for some of the world's most deadly and debilitating conditions.

And his biocentric universe is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - one that has yet to be even tested. So, tell you what. You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it. Until then, it is just one of hundreds of pseudo-scientific ramblings attempting to make superstition sound reasonable.

You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it.

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

Intelligent Design vs. Chaos
There are no Atheists in Fox Holes

Except there are. A lot of us, as a matter of fact. And Intelligent Design isn't even a proper hypothesis. It is pure pseudo-science attempting to inject religion into high school science classes.

You mean like Darwin’s theory? Is that pseudo a Ian s to or rock solid?

It is a valid theory that has been tested, repeatedly, and has altered over the years, as tests have demonstrated that the theory, at the time, was flawed. See, that's how science works. When examination, and means testing demonstrates that a theory is flawed, the theory is altered, unlike pseudo-science that simply discards any evidence that contradicts the preformed expected conclusions.

 

[GreenBean]

And his biocentric universe is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - one that has yet to be even tested. So, tell you what. You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it. Until then, it is just one of hundreds of pseudo-scientific ramblings attempting to make superstition sound reasonable.

You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it.

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

Intelligent Design vs. Chaos
There are no Atheists in Fox Holes

Except there are. A lot of us, as a matter of fact. And Intelligent Design isn't even a proper hypothesis. It is pure pseudo-science attempting to inject religion into high school science classes.

You mean like Darwin’s theory? Is that pseudo a Ian s to or rock solid?

It is a valid theory that has been tested, repeatedly, and has altered over the years, as tests have demonstrated that the theory, at the time, was flawed. See, that's how science works. When examination, and means testing demonstrates that a theory is flawed, the theory is altered, unlike pseudo-science that simply discards any evidence that contradicts the preformed expected conclusions.

Life in the universe would not be possible if about 25 properties of the universe were even remotely different from what they are; as the matter is commonly put, the universe appears "fine-tuned" for life.

Life would not be possible if the force of the big bang explosion had differed by one part in 10 to the 60th power; the universe would have either collapsed on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.

Similarly, life would not be possible if the force binding protons to neutrons differed by even a minscule percentage Intelligent Design or Random Chaos ... God Knows

 

[Czernobog]

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

Intelligent Design vs. Chaos
There are no Atheists in Fox Holes

Except there are. A lot of us, as a matter of fact. And Intelligent Design isn't even a proper hypothesis. It is pure pseudo-science attempting to inject religion into high school science classes.

You mean like Darwin’s theory? Is that pseudo a Ian s to or rock solid?

It is a valid theory that has been tested, repeatedly, and has altered over the years, as tests have demonstrated that the theory, at the time, was flawed. See, that's how science works. When examination, and means testing demonstrates that a theory is flawed, the theory is altered, unlike pseudo-science that simply discards any evidence that contradicts the preformed expected conclusions.

Life in the universe would not be possible if about 25 properties of the universe were even remotely different from what they are; as the matter is commonly put, the universe appears "fine-tuned" for life.

Life would not be possible if the force of the big bang explosion had differed by one part in 10 to the 60th power; the universe would have either collapsed on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.

Similarly, life would not be possible if the force binding protons to neutrons differed by even a minscule percentage Intelligent Design or Random Chaos ... God Knows

You're forgetting one significant detail - we have yet to find even a scintilla of verifiable evidence of life occurring anywhere in the universe, other than here. So, assuming your "Intelligent Design" pseudo-science, it certainly appears that your intelligence wasted an awful lot of material, space, time, and energy in order to bring together all of the necessary qualities to produce life, on a tiny little planet, in the backwaters of an insignificant galaxy in the outer reaches of the universe.

Sorry. Your "Intelligent Design" is just what it looks like - religious posturing pretending to be science.

 

[Crixus]

And his biocentric universe is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - one that has yet to be even tested. So, tell you what. You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it. Until then, it is just one of hundreds of pseudo-scientific ramblings attempting to make superstition sound reasonable.

You come on back with his little hypothesis, when it has had some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support it.

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

Intelligent Design vs. Chaos
There are no Atheists in Fox Holes

Except there are. A lot of us, as a matter of fact. And Intelligent Design isn't even a proper hypothesis. It is pure pseudo-science attempting to inject religion into high school science classes.

You mean like Darwin’s theory? Is that pseudo a Ian s to or rock solid?

It is a valid theory that has been tested, repeatedly, and has altered over the years, as tests have demonstrated that the theory, at the time, was flawed. See, that's how science works. When examination, and means testing demonstrates that a theory is flawed, the theory is altered, unlike pseudo-science that simply discards any evidence that contradicts the preformed expected conclusions.

Flowed how? Have you fed any of Darwin’s books besides “ phage of the beagle” ? Evolution theory is constantly changing depending on who says what in the sciance circles. I hat and how was the theory tested and by whome? By chance, have you studied up on the political side of Darwin’s theory and the political fight those who supported it was having with the. Arholic church? That doesn’t even take into account how he came about his observations?

 

[Unkotare]

....You get that atheism, and nihilism are not synonymous, right? .......

You can't have one without the other. Fear, of course, initiates the whole cycle of self-consumption. It's sad.

 

[Unkotare]

Fear and nihilistic insecurity do not require 'courage.'

Who said they do? .....

The OP.

He clearly did not. ...?

It's clearly what atheism involves.

You clearly have no understanding of atheism. .....

You fearful, pathetic fools are only too obvious.

 

[Czernobog]

....You get that atheism, and nihilism are not synonymous, right? .......

You can't have one without the other. Fear, of course, initiates the whole cycle of self-consumption. It's sad.

In what way does taking the position "God does not exist", dictate that the person holding this position also reject all laws, and institutions? Your claim is nonsensical. I maintain, until empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise, that God does not exist. I still respect the laws of the land, and I still respect the institutions of government.

Your claim is without merit.

 

[Czernobog]

Who said they do? .....

The OP.

He clearly did not. ...?

It's clearly what atheism involves.

You clearly have no understanding of atheism. .....

You fearful, pathetic fools are only too obvious.

Well, you're free to think that.

 

[Czernobog]

And you have some actual verifiable, empirical evidence to support your Atheistic beliefs ?.... you can't prove that God does not exist BUT there is some indication to back up the belief that he/she/it does exist

Intelligent Design vs. Chaos
There are no Atheists in Fox Holes

Except there are. A lot of us, as a matter of fact. And Intelligent Design isn't even a proper hypothesis. It is pure pseudo-science attempting to inject religion into high school science classes.

You mean like Darwin’s theory? Is that pseudo a Ian s to or rock solid?

It is a valid theory that has been tested, repeatedly, and has altered over the years, as tests have demonstrated that the theory, at the time, was flawed. See, that's how science works. When examination, and means testing demonstrates that a theory is flawed, the theory is altered, unlike pseudo-science that simply discards any evidence that contradicts the preformed expected conclusions.

Flowed how? Have you fed any of Darwin’s books besides “ phage of the beagle” ? Evolution theory is constantly changing depending on who says what in the sciance circles. I hat and how was the theory tested and by whome? By chance, have you studied up on the political side of Darwin’s theory and the political fight those who supported it was having with the. Arholic church? That doesn’t even take into account how he came about his observations?

I don't know if you were having spell checking issues, or if you are using/making up words, but I'm afraid I could not comprehend a majority of your post, so I have a hard time rationally responding to it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Life would be so much easier if I could just ignore that I know what I know, and pretend that there is a "happily ever after" that no one has ever confirmed.

Speak for yourself. Some of us have experienced apparitions, a reward for faith.

 

[Unkotare]

....You get that atheism, and nihilism are not synonymous, right? .......

You can't have one without the other. Fear, of course, initiates the whole cycle of self-consumption. It's sad.

In what way does taking the position "God does not exist", dictate that the person holding this position also reject all laws, and institutions? Your claim is nonsensical. I maintain, until empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise, that God does not exist. I still respect the laws of the land, and I still respect the institutions of government.

Your claim is without merit.

You don't know what it means.