Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.
<quoted text> There is no blind faith to be found in science. That's just your dismal effort to keep belief alive with no evidence. But your faith does not require evidence. Science in fact does (end of faith).
That was an incredibly silly statement for a mature and educated individual to make, Orally.
Did you not read that link I posted about the gravitational constant constantly changing? That is the basic building block for modern cosmology. All of your guesses are based upon it. How much is one percent of the universe, Orally? Quite a bit.
Your cosmology and physics is based upon math being inerrant. One problem with that is what you use as a yardstick, in addition to applying it correctly to the measured object.
Another biggie is the impossibility of measuring as you approach infinity.
Let's take volume for instance. How are you going to graph it to measure it? Forget not that the units you create with it do have to add up.
Back to centerpoints. Theoretical markers of no dimension. What kind of grid will you use to graph the volume of this universe? You have two basic choices, square or isometric. Square don't work. Iso has a problem due to the radial nature of a centerpoint. You have gaps between adjacent centerpoints. You run into problems when you calculate totals adding up units. Lines of demarcation and the sort. Those are theoretical lines. "Particles" have definite measurements, but the addition of them introduce space issues, and thus total volume.
The modern math system is too flawed to base your cosmology and universal perspectives on. You are confused about what science is and what it is supposed to be.
A one nanometer error can turn into one huge distance differential between calculation and reality.
<quoted text> I can build you another shelf, no problem. If you don't want to catch a plane, why not a boat? You can come over on a tug boat, or a canoe, or a kayak, or a steamer, or a barge, or a raft, or a yacht, or a cruise ship... What about it? I can build you a raft! I'd have to send it over to you though. Maybe I'll just build the raft, and bring the award to you myself. No, I'm not a strong swimmer. I might get eaten up by a shark. Hmmmmm...
Oh God give me strength!! Men and DIY, NOOOOOOOOOOO!
Look, i'll meet u half way. There got to be some nice island in the middle of the ocean!
Just take good care of my award, i don't want shark bites all over it!
Oh God give me strength!! Men and DIY, NOOOOOOOOOOO! Look, i'll meet u half way. There got to be some nice island in the middle of the ocean! Just take good care of my award, i don't want shark bites all over it!
I'm gonna get to work right away on a houseboat to sail to England!
There is a HUGE^6 difference between the applied sciences and mathematics and those of the theoretical sciences. So many of these Topxi atheists don't understand that. The applied sciences work with real things. The math is made to fit the reality. It is the opposite in theoretical science.
These theoretical scientists these Topix atheist idiots bow down to ride the accomplishments of applied science, giving the illusion they aren't a bunch of wackos floating out there in space, ungrounded to reality. They are snake oil salesmen. There is funding to be gotten.
<quoted text> More on the line the application of it. Tell me, does a proton have a definite "edge" to it? Is it like a ball bearing? Or is it graduated "fields" of some sort? Which of course occupy space. Just how hard are these things you think you observe?
If My knives had the edge of protons, a sharpness would divide.
<quoted text> More on the line the application of it. Tell me, does a proton have a definite "edge" to it? Is it like a ball bearing?
Or is it graduated "fields" of some sort?
Protons are the quantum of the proton field, just like photons are the quanta of the electro-magnetic field.
Which of course occupy space.
The word 'occupy' is strange here. Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, two protons cannot be in the same state at the same time. This produces a type of repulsive force. But, for example, photons do not obey the exclusion principle. Both types of field have values at each point of space, but they don't necessarily exclude other fields from being in the same location.
Just how hard are these things you think you observe?
Hardness is a macroscopic effect, not a microscopic one.
<quoted text> No. <quoted text> Protons are the quantum of the proton field, just like photons are the quanta of the electro-magnetic field. <quoted text> The word 'occupy' is strange here. Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, two protons cannot be in the same state at the same time. This produces a type of repulsive force. But, for example, photons do not obey the exclusion principle. Both types of field have values at each point of space, but they don't necessarily exclude other fields from being in the same location. <quoted text> Hardness is a macroscopic effect, not a microscopic one.
So these particles are not hard thingies? Kinda fuzzy and more concentrated in the middle? Perhaps unobservable because of the observation process? Or just deduced from math schemes?
Yes he was praying and thanking god for the day out loud for the cancer patient. As usual you like a total retard saw someone do something bad and blindly wailed he must have been an atheist. It's just so childish daffy no wonder people think you are a 12 year old. Mentally you never progressed. <quoted text>
I’m touched, Lance prayed out loud. Just what did he say in this prayer since you know so much about it? Let me guess,“Dear Lord, thank you for this day and don’t let me get caught cheating.”
I see similarities in Lance that I see in many other Atheist. As I stated before narcissism and of course this double standard many Atheist live by.
By the way the word “retard” is a bit outdated. It went out of the mainstream circulation about 30 years ago. But it’s ok that you remain outdated because it tells us something about you.
I prefer you the way you are because you represent the worst in Atheist and I want people see the sarcasm, cynicism, and scornful comments. You are doing a good job pushing people away from Atheism. Keep up the good work.
Iain Banks punctured your twatballoon years ago. Instead of getting into a long debate about whether it is right or wrong to use torture to get information to save people from an impending bomb blast he cut through it thus: Yes. You torture the person. You prevent the bomb killing civilians. Then you hand yourself in to the authorities. End of moral dilemma. <quoted text>
So I see the liberal in you says its bad to tirture terrorists to save innocent lives....
You're still incorrect. It would be immoral not to save civilians from a bomb blast if you could. An all powerful god that lets children get shot, or die of leukaemia, or get raped by priests, or to be threatened with eternal damnation would also be immoral- if such a god existed. <quoted text>
You're still incorrect.
God, who is all powerful, is not in control if those that do evil and harm or kill others.
He gave us free will.
Tell me when this thread is updated:(Registration is not required)