Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Full Story

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10927 Jan 10, 2013
DJ Hewlet wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you have if not figments of human imagination, or myths? It takes as much faith to believe that something comes from nothing (big bang) and nonliving matter produces life (evolution) as it does to believe in God.
Atheism is a scientific religion requiring great faith.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10928 Jan 10, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
The big bang theory does not include the concept of "something comes from nothing" and it might well be that life permeates the universe and grows where ever conditions permit. No creator required.
Might well be?

Lots of mights in science, lol.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10929 Jan 10, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
May god strike me the f*ck down right is second.
Still alive,, theists are full of sh*t.
Even though you're rather dense, you're always congenial and pleasant.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10930 Jan 10, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief in No Deities or that there are no Deities is clearly belief in nothing.
Your definition of Religion/Faith required belief in something.
Therefore, Atheism can not be a religion by your own definition.
Yes, atheism is a religion.

http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10931 Jan 10, 2013
Did Darwin have a scientific explanation in his theory for what caused the mutant gene in atheists that triggers their hostility and hatred?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10932 Jan 10, 2013
THE MAJORITY of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all
Richard Dawkins

Has Mr. Dawkins read the statistics showing us that most children born into atheist households forsake atheism when they grow up?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10933 Jan 10, 2013
Many people have falsely accused Madalyn Murray O'Hair of being an atheist.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religi...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10934 Jan 10, 2013
This link has some good scriptures on how Christians need to address atheism.

http://www.gotquestions.org/evangelize-atheis...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10935 Jan 10, 2013
Since Valentine's Day is coming soon, it's a good time to examine atheist love.

http://christwire.org/2012/02/are-atheists-ca...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10936 Jan 10, 2013
Love is very important in the Bible.

God is love.

Why isn't it important in the theory of evolution?

Why can't science explain how love evolved?

Do they know?

No.

When are they going to dissect it?

Did they see it in the dopamine receptors?

LMAO
sarafina

Denver, CO

#10937 Jan 10, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Crystal formations look "designed" I've seen them form, no designer was evident.
Perhaps that has something to do with your limited perception.
sarafina

Denver, CO

#10938 Jan 10, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post doesn't look designed at all.
Perhaps that has something to do with your limited perception.

Science convinces me of magic. To think that we all exist because some elemental dice just happened to fall together right, is magical. Dice thrown by no hand or intent, because neither were invented yet.

If we truly owe our physical existence to the chance conglomeration of certain atoms and molecules in the thickening scum of a primordial pool, then certainly we'll never come this way again in the universe. Moreover, our emotional and intellectual attributes must rest upon the same dubious beginning. Aside from the lack of evidence to back up such scientific speculations, I can't help wondering why atheists would find such a belief system attractive? Before Darwin, man at least felt that God put him on earth for certain purposes no matter how distorted those purposes.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10939 Jan 10, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Might well be?
Lots of mights in science, lol.
Lots of "magic" in religion. So what?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10940 Jan 10, 2013
sarafina wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps that has something to do with your limited perception.
Or yours. Patterns can emerge from nature with no designer required.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10941 Jan 10, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
There actually is a whole Topix Forum on science (" http://www.topix.com/science" ;) but he knows he'd be totally out of his league there.
His post aren't really about science per se, he's just showing off how much he hates things he so clearly doesn't understand.
The above is coming from a theology school dropout who couldn't comprehend the Bible, lol.

By the way, it's funny to me that you consider science off topic, since it's very dear to you and your atheist explanation on how we got here (lol) but the Bible, which Christians accept as the creationist explanation of how we got here - you shoot down every day. So you want to have it YOUR way only. You dictate your beliefs, or you try to, but you're not getting away with it in here.
DJ Hewlet

UK

#10942 Jan 10, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Or yours. Patterns can emerge from nature with no designer required.
You don't know that and neither does science. Science pays very little attention to philosophical questions about Intelligent Design or why we are here, even while most definitely telling us what is true or not true. And while postulating that life is basically meaningless or goal-less, it fights awfully hard to convince everyone that its right. Science wants only what science believes and so do atheists and Christians.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10943 Jan 10, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheist is a Religion.
Religion
Synonyms: credo, creed, cult, FAITH, persuasion
faith\ˈfāth\
noun
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Atheism
Belief that there is no Deity or Deities.
Hence - Atheism = Religion
Posted earlier by derek4
The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts [Hardcover]
Joan Konner (Author)
3.6 out of 5 stars See all reviews (29 customer reviews)
List Price:$16.99
Price:$11.55 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
Deal Price:
You Save:$5.44 (32%)
Only 4 left in stock (more on the way).
http://www.amazon.com/The-Atheists-Bible-Illu...
[Wow – only 4 left – MAN – those atheists love their bibles!!!- get your copy now before they run out!!!!]
Posted else where by derek4
From: The Columbus Dispatch:
February 4, 2011
Church, without God
“Stan Bradley likes Bible stories, admires Martin Luther and uses expressions such as 'heavens, no.'
The Lithopolis man is president of a local congregation and rarely misses a Sunday service. Occasionally, he goes to his wife's church instead.
For these and other reasons, Bradley considers himself religious.”
He is also an atheist.
continued:
“Like Bradley, some atheists participate in organized religion for its social and psychological benefits.”
continued:
“Churches are great places to find friends, support and youth education, so nonbelievers and believers alike join congregations to fill those needs, he said.
He has spoken to elderly and sick people who can no longer go to church and they say they most miss the feeling of community.
Recent research from Harvard University and the University of Wisconsin backs him up. It found that religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people, not because of belief but because of the friendships found at church.”
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/faith...
“religious people tend to be happier than nonreligious people”[I have said this all along, and my posts are still on the board to confirm it. Now you hear it straight from the atheist, lol.]
Based on the definitions you provided, no it is not a religion. Twist the facts all you want, but the information you get in your email from the creationist website is already debunked millions of times over.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#10944 Jan 10, 2013
DJ Hewlet wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know that and neither does science. Science pays very little attention to philosophical questions about Intelligent Design or why we are here, even while most definitely telling us what is true or not true. And while postulating that life is basically meaningless or goal-less, it fights awfully hard to convince everyone that its right. Science wants only what science believes and so do atheists and Christians.
You have no evidence to support the existence of this "designer". All you have is unsupported conjecture ... aka .... nothing.
KJV

United States

#10945 Jan 10, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Another empty threat.
Yup
KJV

United States

#10946 Jan 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>.
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/11/...

"String Theory Now on Life Support
Posted by Tom Hartsfield at Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:06:32

There are plenty of reasons not to like string theory. Philosophical and logical arguments against the theory have long been apparent. Strong scientific evidence is increasingly joining them. The discovery of the Higgs boson exactly where the Standard Model says it should be last summer at the LHC was a first blow. Now, more evidence is coming in.

This week, LHCb (LHC-B), one of the many huge experiments along the LHC ring, reported a major result. The result itself is very technical, but its implications are general: big trouble for physics theories that involve supersymmetry (SUSY), string theory and many similar theories included. If SUSY is discarded, string theory goes right out with it.

How is the new physics coming out of the LHC closing the window of validity for string theory?

When the LHC smashes its particles together at world record energies, a shower of debris (new particles) is created. Large detectors surround the circumference of the ring itself, like insulation built around a pipe. When a collision happens inside the pipe, the resulting particles get caught by the detector wrapped around it. The detector pours out a massive amount of data, telling where every particle goes.

The data itself is enough to fill a modern computer hard drive every second. To sift through all this information requires a tremendous amount of computer processing. What physicists ultimately want to know is the mass and trajectory of each particle that was created in the smash-up. They try to recreate the entire scene, from the collision through all the debris flying into the detector.

In this case, physicists were looking for a particular particle called the "strange B meson" (Bs) to break into two more particles, called mu particles (μ+ and μ-). These strange B mesons usually only live for roughly just less than one trillionth of a second before breaking apart (called decaying). Here's where the Standard Model (SM) vs. Supersymmetry (SUSY) argument comes in.

If the SM is correct, about once in every 280 million times the Bs decays, the two μ particles should be detected. The number found by the LHC? Roughly once every 310 million times, with some uncertainty. Very close agreement, especially for such a rare and hard to detect decay.

So what does this say about string theory? If supersymmetry is correct, then this decay should occur far more often. In fact, by establishing this number, nearly all reasonable string theory models have failed in a testable prediction.(Unfortunately this prediction is so technical that it would require its own entire essay to explain.)

SUSY supporters had put forth a number for this prediction. Then, as noted by Peter Woit, they changed it when experimental data ruled them out. Then they were shown wrong and changed it again. Now the third prediction has proven wrong. Soon, we will reach a point where further changes in prediction will leave SUSY, and by extension string theory, practically unobservable to us, thus moving them out of the realm of science. String theory is truly being backed into a corner.

Being a popular and respected field, theoretical SUSY and string research will continue on. If more news like this keeps coming out, however, funding may begin to wane in the coming years. Perhaps this will spawn a fresh theory, both more testable and more accountable."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 33 min Hooogle It 77
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Dave Nelson 230,939
Evidence for God! 5 hr Uncle Sam 43
Heaven 5 hr susanblange 42
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 14 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,391
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 15 hr Chiclets 23,039
Our world came from nothing? 17 hr _Bad Company 1,103

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE