Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Mike Duquette]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Hawkins sucks in logic.
<quoted text> Energy used in creation by what? Something has to use it. Where did energy come from? Energy is something, not nothing. <quoted text> Where do natural laws come from?
<quoted text> i explained that. Natural forces have no life or intelligence to transmit. They are not there. Natural forces cannot transmit what they do not have. They are insufficient cause. Life gives life. Non life does not give anything since it has nothing to give. No motivation to give. No motivation period. If possible, you need to be deprogrammed.

Does gravity need motivation? Does gravity cause objects to move and thus form different objects?

I would imagine natural forces are due to what is in nature.

"Non life gives nothing"? Really? We can see matter that is not life form together by forces of gravity and magnetic attraction and blend together to form other objects.
No motivation needed.

Thus it stands to reason it may be possible for the same forces over time could form life.

But you again are taking a big leap from the big bang to life.

Try to keep the debate reduced to smaller parts. Reductionism.

[TheBlackSheep]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Therefore you should expect whatever comes you way without complaint
There is nothing weak about civility and understanding, it shows more humanity than the fu[ckem attitude.

FYI: "The effort by a large portion of the Muslim world, including the Egyptian and Iranian presidents, to render blasphemy illegal around the globe is truly, really stupid, as well as immoral."

http://www.topix.com/religion/atheism/2012/10...

[Mike Duquette]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Energy is something, not no thing. In creation there is no thing. No energy included, no forces included. Nothing, no thing. Got it?
<quoted text> Nothing cannot have energy since energy is something. It s logical contradiction. If nothing can include energy then it is ad hoc exception. It is special pleading. Nothing means no thing.

I am fully aware the wording is a contradiction. But I thought I explained it is all in relative terms?
There is no such thing as 'nothing' in reality, as all of space has energy in it. So does that mean you will ever stop using the word 'nothing'?
When someone asks you what you are doing, you may say nothing, but in all actuality, you are at least breathing.
So the word is relative to the context of the conversation.

Now, assuming you understand that concept, can we move on?

[timn17]

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> I cut out the preaching part of your post. Abiogenesis and self created universe is totally worthless in my life and i would add totally worthless in an objective sense to say the least. i know some believe these things and i also know i have no control over whatever fantasies haappen in the heads of others. Biology has little to do in my life so i don't spend a lot of time on it. Professionalism is expected and i do not see a lot of it in your posts. I tire of your self promotion and your browbeating concerning Biology. It is in bad taste. Obviously you do not care about truths of the first order and are content to live your life with blinders on when it comes to what really matters and you have that right. Have a nice night. By the way. Am skeptical of your claim you read the Bible four times.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you are running a gag on everyone here. Your posts are hilarious.

You go on and on about how science has gotten it all wrong, and then freely admit that you know next to nothing about the things you constantly dismiss out of hand.

To make matters worse, after you choose to simply ignore something that you don't even take the time to learn about, you chastise people for not taking the time to understand your personal myths. So let me get this straight - you expect everyone else to thoroughly study, and presumably *believe* your personal brand of religious belief (which is just one type out of many thousands, and for which there is no objective proof), yet you refuse to consider the ability of science to explain our universe.

That's just absurd. To you, people are *blind* because they don't seriously consider something for which there is no objective evidence and instead choose to put their "faith" in a mode of thought that has actually proven itself time and time again.

People like you are a dying breed. Even most religious people have been forced to accept the unparalleled ability of science to explain things. It takes a particularly hardy case of brainwashing to produce an individual who can look at the totality of the evidence and still remain a biblical literalist. This is why I'm starting to believe (or rather, hope) that you are a troll. The other option is just depressing.

[Mike Duquette]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text> Right. Got it.
<quoted text> I'm following...
<quoted text> But not fact? huh
<quoted text> Wrong. I know with a 100% certainty.
<quoted text> couple of big words there...
<quoted text>
there's more of them big 'uns...
<quoted text>
you had me at hello.
<quoted text>
How can you explain to me what I already understand?

Do you need to be a smart ass? I am trying to be civil.

How can you 'know with 100% certainty" of something that has zero evidence?

Science does not claim to know anything with 100% certainty without massive amounts of evidence.

[Eagle12]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
The case you described would surely be in the news paper!

It was in the local paper. It is a small local paper.

[Eagle12]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
That was Centralia, IL, right?

Nope but you are close.

[Mike Duquette]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text> Right. Got it.
<quoted text> I'm following...
<quoted text> But not fact? huh
<quoted text> Wrong. I know with a 100% certainty.
<quoted text> couple of big words there...
<quoted text>
there's more of them big 'uns...
<quoted text>
you had me at hello.
<quoted text>
How can you explain to me what I already understand?

No, Hawking does not claim this to be fact. All I am pointing out is that there are other possibilities to how the universe came to be without a god.
You insist it must be of a god because the science cannot show how it could be created without a god.
So it stands to reason if I can show how the universe might be caused without a god, your claims would fall flat.

So I need not show it must have happened in any certain way, all I have to show is it might be possible without a god.

And BTW, can you show how a god creates anything out of nothing? Can you show how a god could be, without being created?

You see, you are expecting way more from us than you can supply of your own concept.

[Atheist Silurist]

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>I am becoming more and more convinced that you are running a gag on everyone here. Your posts are hilarious.
You go on and on about how science has gotten it all wrong, and then freely admit that you know next to nothing about the things you constantly dismiss out of hand.
To make matters worse, after you choose to simply ignore something that you don't even take the time to learn about, you chastise people for not taking the time to understand your personal myths. So let me get this straight - you expect everyone else to thoroughly study, and presumably *believe* your personal brand of religious belief (which is just one type out of many thousands, and for which there is no objective proof), yet you refuse to consider the ability of science to explain our universe.
That's just absurd. To you, people are *blind* because they don't seriously consider something for which there is no objective evidence and instead choose to put their "faith" in a mode of thought that has actually proven itself time and time again.
People like you are a dying breed. Even most religious people have been forced to accept the unparalleled ability of science to explain things. It takes a particularly hardy case of brainwashing to produce an individual who can look at the totality of the evidence and still remain a biblical literalist. This is why I'm starting to believe (or rather, hope) that you are a troll. The other option is just depressing.

LOL' I licked this line. "Biology has little to do in my life so i don't spend a lot of time on it"

[Aura Mytha]

preterism wrote:

<quoted text> Matter, now can you prove he didn't? Now prove how and when matter was made, as God says, in the beginning he created the heavens and earth and that would include matter.

Great now show in the bible where it says "in the beginning god created matter" . You just wont face the truth the bible is as about as accurate as using a sick of gopher wood to measure the universe with.

[TheBlackSheep]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>I am fully aware the wording is a contradiction. But I thought I explained it is all in relative terms?
There is no such thing as 'nothing' in reality, as all of space has energy in it. So does that mean you will ever stop using the word 'nothing'?
When someone asks you what you are doing, you may say nothing, but in all actuality, you are at least breathing.
So the word is relative to the context of the conversation.
Now, assuming you understand that concept, can we move on?

He understands, but he is a funded/troll. Or maybe he really is stupid.

[RiversideRedneck]

scaritual wrote:

<quoted text>
Your Jesus is showing.
Don't forget the Jesus and the naked guy in the garden.

lol, that's all you, buddy

[Eagle12]

This is why Europe and the free world remains free.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldwar2man/446...

[RiversideRedneck]

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>Do you need to be a smart ass? I am trying to be civil.

It was very uncivil of you to demean...

How can you 'know with 100% certainty" of something that has zero evidence?

Because God has touched me. I know He's real.

Science does not claim to know anything with 100% certainty without massive amounts of evidence.

I am not "science", I am only me. I know that God is real.

[RiversideRedneck]

timn17 wrote:

To you, our system of morality hinges on nothing but a fear of punishment after death.

eh?

[TheBlackSheep]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope but you are close.

Well, where are you? My wife's hometown is Streator, IL, maybe on our next trip to see her family, I could swing by the ol' eagle homestead and jump on down from the tree! LOL!

[RiversideRedneck]

Mike Duquette wrote:

"Non life gives nothing"? Really? We can see matter that is not life form together by forces of gravity and magnetic attraction and blend together to form other objects.
No motivation needed.

I think the point was, "life" can't come from nothing.

As you put it, matter is NOT a life form, but can come together to make something.

But not life.

[TheBlackSheep]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
It was in the local paper. It is a small local paper.

News that big and it was only in the local paper? WTF? Next, I bet you are going to tell me that Centralia local news paper is not on line, like the rest of the world.

[TheBlackSheep]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text> It was very uncivil of you to demean...
<quoted text> Because God has touched me. I know He's real.
<quoted text> I am not "science", I am only me. I know that God is real.

God and some middle eastern man are going around touching men!?!? WTF?

[Aura Mytha]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not many things uncreated outside of space and time?
<quoted text>
I guess you don't know much math, huh? Your statement is simply false. It assumes there is a *beginning* and *then* an infinite time. In actuality, it is possible there is only a finite time between any two events, but an infinite amount of time in the past.

Since declaring past time cannot be infinite , I became aware of the idea that expansion of space/time can literally make past time infinite. Ever stretching space/time can make a finite point infinitely irretrievable in the past. I never looked at it this way before but now I know now a finite point in the past can
infinite in space/time. Mind boggling but I know it's true.
Such would be the case if you tried to move to a position in x,y,z axis matter occupied in space/time 13.7 billion years ago.
Not sure if you follow me ,but my position has changed in infinite past time.