Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

[RHill]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
For a guy from Texas, you seem like a little fart handle.
How come they quit playing football down there?
You'll get to watch the Alabama boys play, though.

I try real hard to care about football, but there's just too many godbots to try and save!

[RHill]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand it. It's in error.
Go shit through a keyhole and see if it lands random.

Let's see ... the Universe <BOOM!!> ... shit through a keyhole <SPLAT!!> ... hmmmmm ... don't think we're talking about the same thing. Interesting analogy though. Sorta. Keep up the good work!

[pinch111]

JrEsq wrote:

<quoted text>
I would guess that there is a strong chance that "pinch111" is homosexual.

No hetrosexual,why were you hoping to hook up?

[RHill]

JrEsq wrote:

Heterosexual atheists generally don't try to jam their non-beliefs down everyone's throats like homosexual atheists do.
This indicates that the motivation of the homosexuals is simply to destroy, and therefore probably is derived from an exterior source.

There's something to that in the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sense. In the larger sense though, our real challenge is finding common ground and learning toleration. There is no intellectual justification for the things that divide us. Everyone needs to look inside themselves, with a very critical eye and throw out a lot of old rubbish. Well, everyone except heterosexual atheists ... we're already perfect!!

[pretty blonde]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
I said it changes form, which means there is a direct relationship between matter and energy. E = MC2
You don't know any more about physics than you do the
Bible.

I know gravity Lu Lu and it looks like its taking your boobs to your knees honey!!!!

[LuLu Ford]

pretty blonde wrote:

<quoted text> I know gravity Lu Lu and it looks like its taking your boobs to your knees honey!!!!

Only if I stay living on Earth without a bra.

[LuLu Ford]

JrEsq wrote:

<quoted text>
I would guess that there is a strong chance that "pinch111" is homosexual.

Is this supposed to be some kind of insult?
FAIL

[madscot]

MUQ wrote:

Who told you that “My God” was born after 200 BCE? And what is this My God and Your God? There is only a single God and He was always existing.

The Torah wasn't written down till 300 BCE. Therefore Confucious
would not have known about the God of the Bible.

MUQ wrote:

You are right, scientists assign term to what they observe in nature and the more deeply they observe, the more accurate their assignments become.

Yep

MUQ wrote:

But if they also used their brains as to “why” these things are happening, may be their observations could have led them to their Creator. But they kept their eyes and minds closed on “Why” and only concentrated on “How”.

Science isn't in the buisiness to explain why. They leave that up to the idiot theists to speculate about.

MUQ wrote:

I need not have to improve any thing. The evidence is what is present in this Universe. If some one after deep observation of nature, concludes “There is no Creator”…. Then he or she is the most illogical, unreasonable person on this planet.

You wouldn't know evidence if it dick slapped you in the face.

[pinch111]

Richard Dawkins Foundation for reason and science,google for information.

[madscot]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Mater changing into energy, is not changing its form, it is totally a different thing.
Energy is also not "self created"....both matter and energy got created at the time of Big Bang!!

In physics, in particular special and general relativity, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy; energy is a property of all mass; and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93ene...

[LuLu Ford]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
That "not a bit can be altered" was not written by Moses!!
Jesus indeed changed many provisions of "Law of Moses" as it was then known!!
I think you do not read Gospels, and you accuse me of not reading Bible!!

I wasn't quoting it Jackass.

[LuLu Ford]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
In physics, in particular special and general relativity, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy; energy is a property of all mass; and the two properties are connected by a constant. This means (for example) that the total internal energy E of a body at rest is equal to the product of its rest mass m and a suitable conversion factor to transform from units of mass to units of energy. Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"[1] The equivalence is described by the famous equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93ene...

Exactly. That's what I read and that's what I understand. I sure wouldn't take an internet trolls word for it. lmao

[madscot]

MUQ wrote:

Energy is also not "self created"....both matter and energy got created at the time of Big Bang!!

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

[madscot]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. That's what I read and that's what I understand. I sure wouldn't take an internet trolls word for it. lmao

MUQ trying to explain physics is like...well...a five year old trying to explain physics.

[madscot]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
"Who" made that postulate? You or Newton or Darwin or Einstein?

Many different physicists :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_...

[Buck Crick]

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Really?

How long has energy existed then?

An answer in hours is specific enough - just to make it easy for you.

Hint: If you can't answer how long energy has existed, you cannot say that it cannot be created.

[madscot]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Really?
How long has energy existed then?
An answer in hours is specific enough - just to make it easy for you.
Hint: If you can't answer how long energy has existed, you cannot say that it cannot be created.

13.7 billion years.

[emperorjohn]

JrEsq wrote:

Heterosexual atheists generally don't try to jam their non-beliefs down everyone's throats like homosexual atheists do.
This indicates that the motivation of the homosexuals is simply to destroy, and therefore probably is derived from an exterior source.

Most atheists do not try to force their lack of belief down anyone's throat. But we will speak out against religious bigotry and hatred.

[Richardfs]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
"Who" made that postulate? You or Newton or Darwin or Einstein?

ROTFPML

Darwin was a Physicist?

Your stupid just keeps on coming.

[-Skeptic-]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Hint: If you can't answer how long energy has existed, you cannot say that it cannot be created.

This is the stupidest most unscientific thing I've ever heard.

You're trying to argue with thermodynamics.

If you think energy can be created, why don't you go solve all the world's problems. Or how about maybe have a god go do it for you?

Oh snap, that's right, god isn't real and all creationists are liars.