“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1569 Oct 30, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's your bogus, cartoonish definition. You admitting you believe and say "ludicrous things?
<quoted text>
Funny how these very same scientists who are explaining the BB to you are unaware of all the laws of physics supposedly being broken. I mean, you would think they would have factored that into their explanation, right?
Instead we have you, an ignorant, uneducated Jesus Freak, telling scientists what science is! LOL, right?
<quoted text>
Yes, it would. What's your point?
I have been through this with him (and several of his socks) several times and he is still fixated on the singularity scenario Ė science does not tell us the universe started with a singularity, science does not know what happened prior to 10^-34th of a second after the event. The fundamental laws of the universe did not exist and therefore there is no reference point for description or understanding.

10^-34th of a second after is close enough to be considered instantaneous compared to the fasted single clock tick of the worlds fastest computer.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1570 Oct 30, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I hate Jews? I dislike liars, whatever their belief, I hate terrorists, murderers and paedophiles, liars are not quite in the same category, but not far off. Just because you are Jewish does not make you a liar, what makes you a lair is your personality.
You can of course claim the religion card or the race card or any card you like, it makes no difference to fact that you have been caught lying and were challenged on the lie. For which you refuse even to acknowledge your lies and have now tried five different excuses to offload your guilt.
If truth is anathema to your debating method of :-
* see it your way or your opponent is using ad hominemís,(most common)
* or you claim hyperbolism
* or you post sexist comments
* or offer sarcasm (something you are not suited to)
* or you claim racial or religious hatred
Then we can only assume that nine persons in your case is a lie too. Or perhaps you lied to them as you lie to everyone on topix in which case we are not talking religious conversion here but fraudulent abduction.
I have never seen anyone wriggle as much as you in the face of facts, you may think it clever but I can assure you most people can see right through you. You donít like the facts of the matter then maybe you should have thought about that before LYING Ė or at least been man enough to accept those facts.
---------

All right, I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt; but first, I need you to pruduce the evidence that I have lied. You can't. Obviously, your hostility is springing from somewhere else. If you can't prove that I have lied, that's okay, I just promise not to waste your time any more. And I apologize for any further inconvenience.

Ben

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1571 Oct 30, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been through this with him (and several of his socks) several times and he is still fixated on the singularity scenario Ė science does not tell us the universe started with a singularity, science does not know what happened prior to 10^-34th of a second after the event. The fundamental laws of the universe did not exist and therefore there is no reference point for description or understanding.
10^-34th of a second after is close enough to be considered instantaneous compared to the fasted single clock tick of the worlds fastest computer.
Proof? Where did you get that science knows what happened 10^-34th of a second after the "event"?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1572 Oct 31, 2012
The most recent Pew Forum publication on this topic--22 days old--is titled, "Nones on the Rise: One-in-five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation."

The director of the study notes emphatically in the preface that "the absence of religious affiliation does not necessarily indicate an absence of religious beliefs or practices" and that "most of the 'nones' say they believe in God, and most describe themselves as religious, spiritual, or both."

The Executive summary that begins the article includes a graph that makes the trend plain: atheists and agnostics, displayed separately, combine to make up about one third of the 'nones,' as they did in the 2007 study. The unaffiliated experienced a 28% growth rate in its share of the adult population, atheists a 50% rate, and agnostics 57%. But while only 29% of the nones self-identify as atheists or agnostics, 32% did not answer "yes" when asked whether they believe in God, so there are an additional 3% of the unaffiliated who are functionally atheistic or agnostic, bringing that total to about 9% of the general American adult population. Those growth rates are not uncommon among small demographic minorities I've reviewed over the years, though, and may not represent as huge a variance from simple stability as they might look at first glance.

The study also notes that only 10% of the unaffiliated are looking for a religion that would be right for them, making that population unlikely to decline, and since the young are much more likely to be unaffiliated, it might well continue to increase.

The greatest losses to the ranks of the unaffiliated from the Christian camp came from Protestants (11% of the general population, 18% reduction of the protestant population), the least from the Catholics (1% of the general population, not quite 4% of the affiliated Catholics.

The upshot of all this is that both sides of the argument on this thread are a little bit right and a little bit wrong in that both are overstating their cases to some extent. Maybe it's time to put this one to bed.

Me too. My shift is over, time to go home.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1573 Oct 31, 2012
"functionally atheistic or agnostic,"
what is that supposed to mean?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1574 Oct 31, 2012
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
All right, I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt; but first, I need you to pruduce the evidence that I have lied. You can't. Obviously, your hostility is springing from somewhere else. If you can't prove that I have lied, that's okay, I just promise not to waste your time any more. And I apologize for any further inconvenience.
Ben
Thank you for condescending to give me the benefit of the doubt

I can prove you lied, topix is a great record keeper and I have already pointed it to you several times, which (apart from once when you made excuses) you have deemed to ignore.

You claimed billions (thats B I L L I O N S) of generations. The babble itself documents only 50 odd generations and since that time there have been approximately 100 generations. How the babble only got 50 odd generations in a claimed 4000 years I am at a loss but even if you calculated generations of as low as 15 years (normal for the time) you only get around 250 generations

Then when you were questioned on it you made excuses of hyperbole. There is a major difference between 150 and billions, there is even a major different between the mathematical generation maximum of 15 years for all 6000 years you only get 400 generations

OK, forget the babble for a moment, lets look at real life, the human race reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago so lets work on that time span at 15 years generations. 13,000 generations is not billions either how about if we drop it to 12 year generations nope thatís still only 16000 generations.

OK lets go back 8 million years to the start of the evolution of homonids and again stick with 12 year generations. No still only 600,000 generations

To have a figure of billions you would need the generation progression of an amoeba

So where did billions come from? Surely not a deliberate lie designed to mislead?

That instance is recent and easily traceable over the last few topix pages

I will now refer you to the time you wrote on here that you had written a book on biblical times. To do that you need a considerable amount of knowledge of biblical times (of you fluff it and lie, itís been know). Yet recently you claimed not to be too knowledgeable on the period. Which was the lie? The book, or your lack of knowledge.

And of course when you were questioned about this incident to deemed to ignore it.

You then of course blame any hostility on me, on religious hatred, on anything thatg excuses you, this of course is the typical shoulder sloping response of a liar,Ďwhat? Who me boss? Not me boss. It must have been the other guyí

Honey you of all people should realist that you need a good memory to be a convincing liar.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1575 Oct 31, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Proof? Where did you get that science knows what happened 10^-34th of a second after the "event"?
Professor Brian Cox, an advanced fellow and Professor at the University of Manchester and Cern, particle physicist extraordinaire who helped in the design of and participates in the ATLAS and the CMS experiment at the LHC, plus a great dinner guest.

Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton at the University of North Carolina, cosmologist and theoretical physicist, whose ideas of the creation of the universe address the main stumbling points of every other theory, including the cold spot and the section of the universe that is moving in opposition to the rest.

Professor Neil Turok director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, works in the area of mathematical physics and early universe physics who once said we donít yet know how it happened but one thing is certain, no god did it.

Dr Param Singh of Louisiana State University, mathematical genius who invented the mathematics that allow science to theorise what happened before the big bang. His work alone is responsible for changing the ideas of long big bang hero and exponent Professor Sir Roger Penrose and is responsible for much of the musings of Steven Hawking

* Professor Sir Roger Penrose is an mathematical physicist, and Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as Emeritus fellow of Wadham College, of Oxford University

* and of course you must know of Steven Hawking, a theoretical physicist he is the research director at Cambridge Universityís centre for theoretical cosmology

So my sources comprise of some fairly eminent fellows in the field of cosmology, 5 of the 6 teach cosmology to cosmologists and one administers the work of teams of leaders in the fields of cosmology and graviton, particle physics , condensed matter, quantum theories and superstring theory. One has been knighted for his contribution to science, one has been awarded the CBE and the US Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contribution to science and one has been awarded the OBE for his services to science

The works, papers, documentaries of each of these people is available online 0- feel free to help yourself and learn something new
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#1576 Oct 31, 2012
Yes, but, but, WERE THEY THERE!??:)

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1577 Oct 31, 2012
Gillette wrote:
Yes, but, but, WERE THEY THERE!??:)
Was anyone?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1578 Oct 31, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Professor Brian Cox, an advanced fellow and Professor at the University of Manchester and Cern, particle physicist extraordinaire who helped in the design of and participates in the ATLAS and the CMS experiment at the LHC, plus a great dinner guest.
Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton at the University of North Carolina, cosmologist and theoretical physicist, whose ideas of the creation of the universe address the main stumbling points of every other theory, including the cold spot and the section of the universe that is moving in opposition to the rest.
Professor Neil Turok director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, works in the area of mathematical physics and early universe physics who once said we donít yet know how it happened but one thing is certain, no god did it.
Dr Param Singh of Louisiana State University, mathematical genius who invented the mathematics that allow science to theorise what happened before the big bang. His work alone is responsible for changing the ideas of long big bang hero and exponent Professor Sir Roger Penrose and is responsible for much of the musings of Steven Hawking
* Professor Sir Roger Penrose is an mathematical physicist, and Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as Emeritus fellow of Wadham College, of Oxford University
* and of course you must know of Steven Hawking, a theoretical physicist he is the research director at Cambridge Universityís centre for theoretical cosmology
So my sources comprise of some fairly eminent fellows in the field of cosmology, 5 of the 6 teach cosmology to cosmologists and one administers the work of teams of leaders in the fields of cosmology and graviton, particle physics , condensed matter, quantum theories and superstring theory. One has been knighted for his contribution to science, one has been awarded the CBE and the US Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contribution to science and one has been awarded the OBE for his services to science
The works, papers, documentaries of each of these people is available online 0- feel free to help yourself and learn something new
I will thanks. Not that I think that Stephen Hawking's work carries much weight. How many bets has that guy lost ?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1579 Nov 1, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I will thanks. Not that I think that Stephen Hawking's work carries much weight. How many bets has that guy lost ?
What you think is irrelevant in the context. Both the UK government and US government think differently and have honoured him for his contributions to science. As do the Royal society, the royal astronomical society, American Physical Society and the University of Cambridge

His thoughts are responsible for many of the scientific break thoughts and understandings of modern cosmology.

I think itís two, tell me how many bets have your lost and you donít even push the boundaries of known science. And of course he is willing to accept alternatives and admit he is capable of learning. Can you say the same?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1580 Nov 1, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What you think is irrelevant in the context. Both the UK government and US government think differently and have honoured him for his contributions to science. As do the Royal society, the royal astronomical society, American Physical Society and the University of Cambridge
His thoughts are responsible for many of the scientific break thoughts and understandings of modern cosmology.
I think itís two, tell me how many bets have your lost and you donít even push the boundaries of known science. And of course he is willing to accept alternatives and admit he is capable of learning. Can you say the same?
It was a joke and it has been seven.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1581 Nov 1, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>It was a joke and it has been seven.
What another lil ticked ^joke^?

Could have been seven I only know 2, black holes radiating and the higgs boson, may be more, do you have a list of the best he made and won?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1582 Nov 1, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What another lil ticked ^joke^?
Could have been seven I only know 2, black holes radiating and the higgs boson, may be more, do you have a list of the best he made and won?
You must be British, you have no sense of humor. I will give you a comprehensive list later I can't post links on my phone. But another bet he lost is that a singularity can not exist with out an event horizon. He said that naked singularities are impossible and was proven wrong.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#1583 Nov 1, 2012
Back in 1975, Hawking bet Caltech physicist Kip Thorne that there was no black hole at the center of the X-ray source known as Cygnus X-1. By 1998, he conceded that the black hole was there, and got Thorne a year's subscription to Penthouse magazine as a payoff.

Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University in the UK insisted that any information associated with particles swallowed by black holes is forever lost,
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008...

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1584 Nov 2, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>You must be British, you have no sense of humor. I will give you a comprehensive list later I can't post links on my phone. But another bet he lost is that a singularity can not exist with out an event horizon. He said that naked singularities are impossible and was proven wrong.
Oh I have a great sense of humour, just not a silly sense of humour. For example, I can laugh at you even if I cannot laugh with you.

Seven it could easily be but donít go looking on my account, I am not really bothered, I know Hawking is willing to accept change when there is good reason to accept change, just as the majority of scientists are.

I think this story goes that one commentator who knew Churchill said in an interview that he (Churchill) was bloody stupid, he had a thousand ideas a day and only two are three were any good.

The interviewer who quite liked Churchill and was in a rather roguish mood replied ďTell me, do you have two or three good ideas a day?Ē

You still have not answered my question of how many bets you have lost?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1592 Nov 4, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
"
Doctor Who Two wrote, "
The universe started once the singularity started to expand this would also mean that the laws of phyics also started at that Exact same time. "
Yes, it would. What's your point?"
What's the point? Are you kidding?
It's Impossible for that much mass to be that close together and not slam back together. Not one scientific explanation can actual explain how to get past gravity of the singularity of that amount of mass expanding!
Oh and don't forget science claims this was NOT an explosion but a controlled expansion. LOL
Proven Creationist liar lying to intelligent atheists who will never believe your ridiculous claims about Creationism.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1593 Nov 4, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
Which makes it a guess and not fact.
There is no proof to your claim of when the laws of physics started, hell there is no proof that the Big Bang even happened. It's a guess science took a look at data and forced it in the Big Bang mold nothing more.
Anything no matter how thin has to be held onto because they have nothing else. And if there is nothing else then we're all back to a creator. We can't have that can we.
As we've said before, there's no such thing as god, if you think there is please bring some proof or f*ck off back to your failed cult of liars who can't accept reality or science.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1594 Nov 4, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
"Professor Brian Cox:'We don't know what 96% of the universe is made of ‚Äď we don't understand something fundamental'"
You don't need to know everything in the universe to be able to demonstrate that Creationism is a proven lie spread by shameless liars who think they can argue against hard science.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1595 Nov 4, 2012
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
Posted earlier by derek4
Study: Atheists Have Lowest 'Retention Rate' Compared to Religious Groups
Atheism isn't a religious group so you fail in your first sentence.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 37 min Dave Nelson 230,939
Evidence for God! 4 hr Uncle Sam 43
Heaven 4 hr susanblange 42
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 13 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,391
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 14 hr tha Professor 76
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