What Is The Biggest Drawback Of Atheism?

[ding]

The definition of logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

So let’s start it.

It should be obvious that there are only two options available. Either space and time were created by “spirit” or it arose through natural processes.

Sound reasonable?

No...thats an utterly absurd and false dichotomy.

Spirit could be a natural process.
There might not be such thing as spirit.
There could be something not thought of, that may happen to fall in neither category, and you can only eliminate that by arguing from ignorance: I cant think of something therefore it cant exist.

You shoot you miss almost every time dude. Its s000o0o0o0 gross.

Putting your objection aside for the moment. Are you disagreeing with the assertion that there are only two options?

That WAS my objection, so how ******* stupid was this as a follow up?

Sorry, ding. Cant do this with ya, you're stupidity and obsession with begging for your religiousity to be agreed with is ***** made, to me. I value my time.

Then by your own admission you admit that the only possibility you will consider is the universe arose through natural processes and you are unwilling to explore any other alternative.

This discussion may not be for you because I am considering other alternatives.

So you might as well leave now as every post you make will only be made to prevent an objective discussion on the possibilities.

I literally described that the alternatives are limitless, and from that...you arrived at me asserting only ONE possibility.

Thats so ******* retarded, ding. Are you drunk?

Name them. All options will reduce to spirit creating the material world or the material world arose through natural processes.

 

[Vastator]

The definition of logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

So let’s start it.

It should be obvious that there are only two options available. Either space and time were created by “spirit” or it arose through natural processes.

Sound reasonable?

No...thats an utterly absurd and false dichotomy.

Spirit could be a natural process.
There might not be such thing as spirit.
There could be something not thought of, that may happen to fall in neither category, and you can only eliminate that by arguing from ignorance: I cant think of something therefore it cant exist.

You shoot you miss almost every time dude. Its s000o0o0o0 gross.

Putting your objection aside for the moment. Are you disagreeing with the assertion that there are only two options?

That WAS my objection, so how ******* stupid was this as a follow up?

Sorry, ding. Cant do this with ya, you're stupidity and obsession with begging for your religiousity to be agreed with is ***** made, to me. I value my time.

Then by your own admission you admit that the only possibility you will consider is the universe arose through natural processes and you are unwilling to explore any other alternative.

This discussion may not be for you because I am considering other alternatives.

So you might as well leave now as every post you make will only be made to prevent an objective discussion on the possibilities.

Or you could start a thread about it; as this thread has little to nothing to do with your alternative hypothesis. Try it out and see how many hits you get...

 

[Hollie]

So, the question seems to be is whether a comforting myth is preferable to reality.

Well, reality isn't all that clear. Pretty much the only argument that there is no god is the lack of evidence that there is. This is a logical fallacy and proves nothing. So they are all ultimately myths. Might as well pick the myth you find most comforting.

You are correct that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so to the extent one would claim it is, that assertion would be a fallacy. But it would not be a myth. A myth demands a something to mythologize, not a nothing.

Logically, atheism isn't even possible. Agnosticism is, but that's different.

The Fact you have to believe something actually exists to be in opposition to it. Saying they don't believe in god is in fact an admission that there may be one, that they don't believe in. Chase your tails it's okay. Nothing will forgive you!

So you actually believe in all manner of fairy tale spooks, monsters and goblins?

 

[ding]

The definition of logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

The definition of reasoning is the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

So let’s start it.

It should be obvious that there are only two options available. Either space and time were created by “spirit” or it arose through natural processes.

Sound reasonable?

No...thats an utterly absurd and false dichotomy.

Spirit could be a natural process.
There might not be such thing as spirit.
There could be something not thought of, that may happen to fall in neither category, and you can only eliminate that by arguing from ignorance: I cant think of something therefore it cant exist.

You shoot you miss almost every time dude. Its s000o0o0o0 gross.

Putting your objection aside for the moment. Are you disagreeing with the assertion that there are only two options?

That WAS my objection, so how ******* stupid was this as a follow up?

Sorry, ding. Cant do this with ya, you're stupidity and obsession with begging for your religiousity to be agreed with is ***** made, to me. I value my time.

Then by your own admission you admit that the only possibility you will consider is the universe arose through natural processes and you are unwilling to explore any other alternative.

This discussion may not be for you because I am considering other alternatives.

So you might as well leave now as every post you make will only be made to prevent an objective discussion on the possibilities.

Or you could start a thread about it; as this thread has little to nothing to do with your alternative hypothesis. Try it out and see how many hits you get...

Not a bad idea.

 

[ding]

Putting your objection aside for the moment. Are you disagreeing with the assertion that there are only two options?

That WAS my objection, so how ******* stupid was this as a follow up?

Sorry, ding. Cant do this with ya, you're stupidity and obsession with begging for your religiousity to be agreed with is ***** made, to me. I value my time.

Then by your own admission you admit that the only possibility you will consider is the universe arose through natural processes and you are unwilling to explore any other alternative.

This discussion may not be for you because I am considering other alternatives.

So you might as well leave now as every post you make will only be made to prevent an objective discussion on the possibilities.

I literally described that the alternatives are limitless, and from that...you arrived at me asserting only ONE possibility.

Thats so ******* retarded, ding. Are you drunk?

Name them. All options will reduce to spirit creating the material world or the material world arose through natural processes.

You just invoked the very argument from ignorance that I predicted you would have to in order to preclude any other options than the dichotomy you presented.

I ADDRESSED THIS, in the first ******* response.

I ADDRESSED YOUR LAST THREE REPLIES, in the first fuckin response.

You go play with Taz now, Dingbat.

Every single one of them reduced to spirit or natural causes. These are literally the only two options.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What the heck, we're all gonna die due to Adam's sin and Satan.

If you believe this you are not an atheist

 

[mamooth]

Man, you got by me. At least you learned that you are an internet atheist. Not just a regular atheist, but they can all be regular.

Good. We've established that your bizarre and irrational hatred of atheists has its roots in your past humiliations at the hands of atheists. We're getting somewhere. Now that we know the cause, we can work on a cure.

Haha. Did I say that? Let me tell you what I said in no uncertain terms. All you did was state the same logic. Your logic is redundant. Then I thought I pointed out your logic has nothing to do with "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." I gave you a couple of real world examples which you did not address and nor refute. It seems you are stuck repeating yourself.

Nothing you say ever addresses the topic being discussed. I think everyone has noticed that.

I addressed this, too, with the head of NASA, Ellen Strofan. She wanted to go to Mars to find aliens or evidence of past aliens. Originally, people wanted to go to Mars to colonize it. I thought it was because atheists like her and their scientists have a bug up their arse about not finding aliens. It screws up their evolution. It screws up their panspermia. It screws up their atheism religion. Creation scientists believe God did not create aliens because he did not say it in the Bible, i.e. Bible theory. I thought Trump was doing his job of draining the swamp getting rid of her.

That lunatic rambling had nothing to do with absolute proof vs. actionable evidence. It was just you making up a story to justify your bizarre hatred of atheists.

What you like to do is turn what I stated into incorrect logic and then make up examples to fit your logic. That's circular reasoning fallacy.

Geez, we get it. You can't defend your BS, so you just make nonsense up.

Sure it does. Otherwise, you would've yelled "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ALIENS. IT MEANS THERE ARE NO ALIENS!!!" I even gave that to you on a silver platter. You got more now. Otherwise, show me the alien. While my side has Drake's equation, Fermi's paradox, the Great Filter theory, Elon Musk, fine tuning facts, no abiogenesis, Bible theory, and more. I already said these things to you and you're stuck on a => b and !b => !a. Helloooooooooo, Mr. Internet Atheist.

Have you been drinking? Strike that. Just how much have you been drinking?

Now, you're giving me more repeating yourself or circular logic. Just read what I said above.

As Nietzche sort of said, "If you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes back into you". Trying to decipher your godsoaked babbling is a threat to sanity, so I won't be doing it.

You talked about actionable evidence, so where's your real life example? Who looked for aliens on Earth? What would tell you that it was an alien versus some new organism or previously unknown organism? It's special pleading when you want it from me, but you don't do reciprocate. Wasn't that your original complaint?

And so you evade by redefining "aliens" into "invisible creatures of magic". That's dishonest and pathetic.

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of the aberrant psychology often associated with theism.

 

[BULLDOG]

From what I can tell, the biggest drawback to being an atheist is they don't have a chance of getting their first blowjob at church camp like so many kids do now days.

Yeah them priests and youth directors do get busy at camp and before mass and after mass and during bible study thanks for reminding us !

Don't know about all of them, but I know I got busy, especially on the bus to and from church camp.

 

[james bond]

Can any atheist/ag here provide such a LOGICAL argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Sure. Why did you think the question was difficult?

1. Lack of belief in anything is the default state.

2. Logical belief requires good evidence.

3. There's no good evidence for God.

4. Hence, belief in God is illogical.

The evidence for God is all around and in you.

If you ask me it’s illogical not to believe in God.

He making his logical argument for atheism. In step 1, he assumes what the default state is, but it may or may not be true. He has to prove his first statement is true.

The believers had the the problem when the secular/atheist scientists said the universe was eternal or steady state theory. They had their evidence for this. It meant no beginning.

++++++++

Basically, what the atheists argued with evolution is uniformitarianism. It means the present is the key to the past, but it's not true. However, they got people to believe it and here we are today. Once, Darwin explained how ToE works, then he needed long time or billions of years.

 

[james bond]

Good. We've established that your bizarre and irrational hatred of atheists has its roots in your past humiliations at the hands of atheists. We're getting somewhere. Now that we know the cause, we can work on a cure.

You have a penchant for making logical arguments, but you make the examples up to fit your logic. What you did was present equivalent statements and then try to convince me it reflected what we were discussing. That's wrong. Sure a => b means !b => !a, but both are the equivalent statements. It does reflect what we were discussing. I'm sure you knew you were trying pull a fast one. Thus, I said one cannot conclude anything from knowing b. QED.

As for the rest, it's not worth discussing anymore with a internet atheist haha.

 

[james bond]

I don’t think that retreads of 1980’s vintage BBC videos are relevant. The problem with these types of YouTube videos is that they’re intended to promote the narrow and presumptive view of the author.

The “quote” you cut and pasted was unattributed for a reason. It came from someone’s s personal blog. We have no reason to accept that a growing number of scientists accept the nonsensical “fine tuning” slogan when there is no evidence of any fine tuning. Please explain this fine tuning in terms of a profoundly chaotic universe that includes black holes which swallow solar systems and where stars, planets and even galaxies collide with one-another. This tends to destroy your 6,000 year old planet meme as we see these collisions from thousands upon thousands of light years away.

Galaxies

What is “to contrived” is the nonsensical claim of a fine tuned universe that is not fine tuned at all. ID’iot creationism is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against the gods. If the gods can do anything, they could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

Again, you don't answer my questions, so we do not progress.

We do not have conversations, but only tit-for-tat where you complain about almost everything I said. Thus, I think it leads to your red eye.

I think you are older than me for some reason, so you should have had time to watch the video. All the parameters still hold true today because they are facts. Do you want a list?

Here they are (you don't answer my questions, so I just assumed you said yes haha):
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

What else do you want to talk about?

 

[Hollie]

I don’t think that retreads of 1980’s vintage BBC videos are relevant. The problem with these types of YouTube videos is that they’re intended to promote the narrow and presumptive view of the author.

The “quote” you cut and pasted was unattributed for a reason. It came from someone’s s personal blog. We have no reason to accept that a growing number of scientists accept the nonsensical “fine tuning” slogan when there is no evidence of any fine tuning. Please explain this fine tuning in terms of a profoundly chaotic universe that includes black holes which swallow solar systems and where stars, planets and even galaxies collide with one-another. This tends to destroy your 6,000 year old planet meme as we see these collisions from thousands upon thousands of light years away.

Galaxies

What is “to contrived” is the nonsensical claim of a fine tuned universe that is not fine tuned at all. ID’iot creationism is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against the gods. If the gods can do anything, they could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

Again, you don't answer my questions, so we do not progress.

We do not have conversations, but only tit-for-tat where you complain about almost everything I said. Thus, I think it leads to your red eye.

I think you are older than me for some reason, so you should have had time to watch the video. All the parameters still hold true today because they are facts. Do you want a list?

Here they are (you don't answer my questions, so I just assumed you said yes haha):
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

What else do you want to talk about?

As usual, you don’t provide a source for your cutting and pasting.

As I presumed, your source was a religious blog: The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

It seems all the fundamentalist ID’iot creationist blogs announce their bias with the same set of presumptions: Evidence for God Beliefs

I’m hoping you can provide a link to where the author of the fundie ID’iot creation website has provided his data for peer review.

Can we talk about the dishonesty that grips the ID’iot creationists?

haha.

 

[james bond]

As usual, you don’t provide a source for your cutting and pasting.

As I presumed, your source was a religious blog: The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

It seems all the fundamentalist ID’iot creationist blogs announce their bias with the same set of presumptions: Evidence for God Beliefs

I’m hoping you can provide a link to where the author of the fundie ID’iot creation website has provided his data for peer review.

Can we talk about the dishonesty that grips the ID’iot creationists?

haha.

You still haven't answered my question. One or more pages ago, you said, "human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites." So I asked, "Can you provide some examples, so I understand what you mean?"

What kind of ideals do atheists have? What kind of opposites to these ideals do they have?

Christians try to keep the objective moral values, but we fail. We're sinners. We are tempted by Satan and fail. The opposite is to be holy, i.e. without sin. Thus, we try to atone for our mistakes and sins, repent, and pray we do not do it again. We still have a chance to be with God the Father through Jesus. It means trying to be good and a good tree bears good fruit.

I think atheists' ideals are to do good for others, but they fail and that's it. Others do not care because who is keeping track? The opposite is do onto others before they do onto you. Is that what you meant? They basically want other to do the good things, work hard, pay taxes, and they just leech off the government -- socialism. To atheists, socialism is what is more than their ideals and opposites. Socialism and communism are and become their existence.

++++++++

Anyway, the rest are your usual complaints.

You posted a theistic evolutionist website. You may want to read more here -- The "Fine-Tuning" of the Universe.

Hawking and his scientists found these parameters and after the creation scientists realized what it meant and an article was written in WSJ, Hawking wrote his theory of mass -- Fine-tuning Stephen Hawking's theory of mass. We're in the religious section, but what the heck. Hawking and other atheist scientists could not withstand the onslaught, so they went to the multiverse theory in order to keep their Copernican Principle and ignore the Anthropic Principle. This is why the atheist died trying to find evidence for multiverses. IT REALLY IS RIDICULOUS HOW ATHEISTS AVOID REALITY. Is that another drawback? I think it is!

It started with trying to explain big bang because it is a mess of hot, moving quantum particles, but miraculously they end up forming light, Planck's constant, Higgs field and boson, primordial gases, the universe, and the rest which cannot be explained how it was done. In a little over twenty minutes, the big bang is able to set up what it took God six days to do.

 

[mamooth]

In step 1, he assumes what the default state is, but it may or may not be true.

Do you believe or disbelieve in blue-streaked invisible snarfblatts by default?

If you say you believe, you're either crazy or lying.

Disbelief in the default state until evidence is presented. That's not really arguable.

So, without deflecting to something totally unrelated to the topic, can you address that?

 

[mamooth]

What kind of ideals do atheists have?

What kind of opposites to these ideals do they have?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the atheist. Why on earth would you believe that all atheists have identical beliefs on every topic?

Christians try to keep the objective moral values,

You mean subjective moral values, being they were created by men who claimed to be speaking for a god. Your values are as subjective as anyone else's. Christians can't even agree on what those moral values are supposed to be, illustrating their subjective nature.

To atheists, socialism is what is more than their ideals and opposites. Socialism and communism are and become their existence.

That's just crazy talk, as it has no basis in reality. You're creating your own reality there for emotional reasons.

You may want to read more here -- The "Fine-Tuning" of the Universe.

A bad argument, being it assumes without evidence that variables can be tuned. It's likely that they can't. The fundamental premise is incorrect.

 

[BreezeWood]

Christians try to keep the objective moral values, but we fail.

I think atheists' ideals are to do good for others, but they fail and that's it.

you never answered the question - what are the sins you commit and why are you unable to stop committing them.

neither the above is true failure is due to corruption that is inconsistent to the prosperity both take for granted - only a few are responsible and understand evolutionary progression as an involuntary requirement for survival or extinction.

ToE is not just biological, physiological development it encompasses everything and humanity at best is a spectator not its motivation that easily is about to fall off the train. taking Earth with it.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the topic, the biggest drawback of being an atheist is the lack of a broad social network - which is essentially what religions are. Despite the weird fantasies of the OP, atheism isn't a religion, and atheists can't rely on a community of people who believe as they do for comfort and support.