Atheists on the march in America

[neutral observer]

John wrote:

Anyone who believes in something from nothing is anti-science.

Anyone believes they know the ultimate truth about how the universe came into being and what set off the big bang creation event is pushing a religious agenda. Science has no clue as to what started it all off. Atheism is no less a religion than is Christianity. Atheists even feel the need to spread their one true faith to humanity at large... just like the Christians and Moslems.

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Since I possess no scientific credentials and have not set up camp in science's land-o-facts, I am not required to provide observable testable evidence. I need not pretend to preserve acclaimed scientific facts, nor do I worry about losing face with my colleagues. As a non-subscriber, I have the freedom to stray beyond "official" scientific beliefs in my search for truth.
Atheists on the other hand, as subscribers to science and dwellers in the land-o-facts, must provide what science serves and requires - and that is, proof. Yet how reliable is the science loving atheist's proof? While they can crank out extraordinary statements like funny money, they cannot substantiate these claims with any authority when science's testable observable "evidence" keeps changing. Science has compromised itself by overstructuring and overburdening its repertoire of affirmations. It has stifled itself with an overproduction of "temporary truths" that in the sciences spring up like weeds - tomorrow to be trampled underfoot, barely living through a season before being replaced with a new batch of weeds, which in turn meets the same fate - falling by the wayside.
To complicate matters, each specific field of scientific inquiry in order to maintain its identity as biology, or physics, or psychology, accumulates its own body of temporary truths, or factoids to which it can become slavishly devoted (paradigms). These factoids are usually isolated - taken out of context to some extent and considered only as they relate to a certain discipline, not as they connect with other fields of study even when one set of factoids contradicts another set of factoids. This obfuscation and unreliability is the reason seekers see science as an undependable source of truth, and fewer young people choose science as a career.

All fine and dandy, so ... where's the evidence that suggests your assertions are at all based on reality?

[KittenKoder]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
It is aware. All things possess awareness, or consciousness.
<quoted text>
Before anything is, it it first thought.

So ... rocks are aware?

[KittenKoder]

John wrote:

Nope. Drew lies and you lie. Just cut and paste these relevant answers. This is an atheism forum Rose not a q and a of what I believe. Your disbelief is not belief.
If you want to debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of belief you would have done that years ago. You have nothing of your own.
If Rose had a conscience she would have evidence of it.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
Rose has no conscience.
More lies. More nothing. No evidence from the bigots.

You work in a movie theater.

[KittenKoder]

neutral observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Anyone believes they know the ultimate truth about how the universe came into being and what set off the big bang creation event is pushing a religious agenda. Science has no clue as to what started it all off. Atheism is no less a religion than is Christianity. Atheists even feel the need to spread their one true faith to humanity at large... just like the Christians and Moslems.

We aren't the ones saying some god thing started it. We're saying "we don't know what started it." You're the ones saying you know it all.

[John]

You loons scream for evidence and have none to present. Further, you have proven incapable of quantifying that which you claim to seek. You are merely intellectually dishonest bigots with a forum about nothing.

My claim is simply a response to your agenda based attempts to marginalize believers. If you want to debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of your own you would take the challenge.

You can't. You have nothing. Nothing will never win. All the lies for nothing. Pathetic. Still no evidence, just an avoidance of your nothing. You don't believe in God so stop spending all your time fighting him. Bizzare.

[KittenKoder]

John wrote:

You loons scream for evidence and have none to present. Further, you have proven incapable of quantifying that which you claim to seek. You are merely intellectually dishonest bigots with a forum about nothing.
My claim is simply a response to your agenda based attempts to marginalize believers. If you want to debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of your own you would take the challenge.
You can't. You have nothing. Nothing will never win. All the lies for nothing. Pathetic. Still no evidence, just an avoidance of your nothing. You don't believe in God so stop spending all your time fighting him. Bizzare.

So ... the fossils are all a scam? Chemicals don't really exist? Electricity isn't the transfer or ions? Odd.

[John]

What's odd is you ducking all the questions and presenting no evidence for your nothing. Hey, you have your silly wordplay when I don't reiterate the specificity of what type of evidence each and every post. Each and every year. You weren't saying?

So, atheists hate animals and the elderly. Odd.

[KittenKoder]

John wrote:

What's odd is you ducking all the questions and presenting no evidence for your nothing. Hey, you have your silly wordplay when I don't reiterate the specificity of what type of evidence each and every post. Each and every year. You weren't saying?
So, atheists hate animals and the elderly. Odd.

Again, it's you has nothing.

[Rose_NoHo]

John wrote:

Nope. Drew lies and you lie. Just cut and paste these relevant answers. This is an atheism forum Rose not a q and a of what I believe. Your disbelief is not belief.
If you want to debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of belief you would have done that years ago. You have nothing of your own.
If Rose had a conscience she would have evidence of it.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
Rose has no conscience.
More lies. More nothing. No evidence from the bigots.

Quit dodging.
Let's debate.
Do you agree with this statement or not?
"If god exists, there is evidence of his existence".
Notice, at this point I'm not talking about what would "count" as evidence, nor whether or not this evidence exists.
So, come on, debate!

Stump John, ask him to debate.

[Rose_NoHo]

neutral observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Anyone believes they know the ultimate truth about how the universe came into being and what set off the big bang creation event is pushing a religious agenda. Science has no clue as to what started it all off. Atheism is no less a religion than is Christianity. Atheists even feel the need to spread their one true faith to humanity at large... just like the Christians and Moslems.

Why do people feel the need to claim atheism is a religion? It's not, it's just a lack of belief in gods. Any gods.

[polymath257]

John wrote:

Anyone who believes in something from nothing is anti-science.

Really? Why would you say that?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1510/article_...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v52/i12/p6770...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.114...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

It seems to be fairly standard scientific speculation.

[Buck Crick]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Why would you say that?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1510/article_...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v52/i12/p6770...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.114...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
It seems to be fairly standard scientific speculation.

Wrong.

None of those links support "something from nothing".

You have weird beliefs.

[KittenKoder]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong.
None of those links support "something from nothing".
You have weird beliefs.

So ... you didn't read any of them. I found them fascinating myself, why don't you read them?

[Buck Crick]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
So ... you didn't read any of them. I found them fascinating myself, why don't you read them?

I have read them.

They fail to support Polymouth's claim.

But sufficient to fascinate you, I'm sure.

[KittenKoder]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
I have read them.
They fail to support Polymouth's claim.
But sufficient to fascinate you, I'm sure.

Really? How so?

[LucindaW]

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

[Thinking]

Do remember to thank your god for making childhood leukaemia.

LucindaW wrote:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

[honest atheist]

Thinking wrote:

Do remember to thank your god for making childhood leukaemia.
<quoted text>

And thank him for sharks,aligators,lions,tornado s,tidal waves,volcanos,the plague,the kardasians,and hiltons.

[KittenKoder]

honest atheist wrote:

<quoted text> And thank him for sharks,aligators,lions,tornado s,tidal waves,volcanos,the plague,the kardasians,and hiltons.

Gah, the Kardashians .... if there is a god, he's one sadistic twit.