Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well, because you don't understand what he is stating you don't see where he exposes his belief statements based on a statement of belief about god. I don't have a belief statement about god, other than "show me where what we are seeing supports that trait (or set of sets).
The universe from nothing is an example of how he used people's lack of understanding to push force his beliefs. It wasn't nothing, it was a net zero. also, be very clear maddy, talking about how the universe does work, openly, and consistently, you labeled "ad nauseum", is the best method. I call it relentless common sense.
I talk about how science data supports a hypothesis that the biosphere is alive. I talk about how science supports how many theists just don't understand the connections to a living system around them so they mislabel it as god.
you rail good enough, but you don't offer a science connection to your religious beliefs. You rail on people that don't agree with, you real good, yet you never offer them science connections to the whoo that you do.
I can nail down krause's beliefs and he would have to answer me a certain way, the way that the science dictates. Not the way you want want him "sell" your atheits sect.
You don't really understand him enough to be pushing him as "a king", as a 'savior" to the anti-theist. i mean you can, but for those of us that know what he is saying he's as good a pope for your religion as the pope is for them.
Hitch was another one. making money off of a statement of belief about god without addressing the so of the other implications.
I'm chiming in wayyy behind on this post, but I guess I'm an atheist. I don't really believe in organized religion. I don't have a problem with it -- if it helps people through hard times, helps encourage people to be good people, whatever, then I'm good with it -- I just don't believe in any of it myself. I just tell people that I'm not religious. If they keep talking about religion with me, I just repeat, "That's great, but I'm not religious." I don't feel the need to argue or prove anything, nor do I ask others to argue or prove anything.
well, because you don't understand what he is stating you don't see where he exposes his belief statements based on a statement of belief about god. I don't have a belief statement about god, other than "show me where what we are seeing supports that trait (or set of sets).
The universe from nothing is an example of how he used people's lack of understanding to push force his beliefs. It wasn't nothing, it was a net zero. also, be very clear maddy, talking about how the universe does work, openly, and consistently, you labeled "ad nauseum", is the best method. I call it relentless common sense.
I talk about how science data supports a hypothesis that the biosphere is alive. I talk about how science supports how many theists just don't understand the connections to a living system around them so they mislabel it as god.
you rail good enough, but you don't offer a science connection to your religious beliefs. You rail on people that don't agree with, you real good, yet you never offer them science connections to the whoo that you do.
I can nail down krause's beliefs and he would have to answer me a certain way, the way that the science dictates. Not the way you want want him "sell" your atheits sect.
You don't really understand him enough to be pushing him as "a king", as a 'savior" to the anti-theist. i mean you can, but for those of us that know what he is saying he's as good a pope for your religion as the pope is for them.
Hitch was another one. making money off of a statement of belief about god without addressing the so of the other implications.
Well ... I think the bottom line to all of this is that most atheists trust science since science has a nasty habit of being correct, not because we worship any particular scientist. Oh sure, science has been wrong, too, but one of the great aspects of science is that all knowledge is cumulative. The more we know, the less likely science will be wrong. It's easy to make mistakes when we know next to nothing, but as our "knowledge banks" fill up, the harder it is to get it wrong. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle -- the more pieces you have in place, the easier it becomes to place the remaining pieces. And ... while there is certainly lots left to discover, believe it or not, we do have quite a lot of puzzle pieces already fitted into the overall puzzle.
I don't have any objection to a living biosphere, but that just doesn't seem to be what science is telling us. Note, I didn't say, "That just doesn't seem to be what Lawrence Krause (or Dawkins or Seth Harris or Aron-Ra or Matt Dillahunty or Christopher Hitchens or some other prominent atheist) is telling us."
Having said that, I don't have any idea what your credentials and educational background are -- for all I know you could have more Ph.D.s than the entire faculty of MIT. BUT, no offense, I'm more inclined to stay with the findings of those who have the funding, resources, technology, and time to actually do the experiments and whose conclusions are subject to peer review than the word of an anonymous internet poster who is simply pushing a pet hypothesis no matter how interesting that hypothesis might be.
Like it or not, I've yet to hear anyone say that their scientific experiments and observations indicate that the biosphere is literally alive. It's not that I worship scientists (worship itself is an alien concept to me) and atheism certainly isn't a "sect" any more than there's a sect of non-football players or a sect of non-moonlanding hoax people or a sect of people who don't go to the zoo. Atheists are simply too diverse for that kind of coherence.
For me, at least, my skepticism isn't religious in nature but scientific -- I need more than an interesting set of data that could very well be incorrectly correlated with one another. It's like how conspiracy theorists trap the gullible with their lies: it's not that hard to put together a hypothesis that sounds plausible yet could still be very wrong.
If the biosphere turns out to be alive, hey, great ... I only take issue with fundamentalists and their extreme god-claims since they can be demonstrably proven to my satisfaction to be false. In your case, my reservation isn't that you're wrong. You just haven't been shown to be right, either. Choosing between nearly every qualified astronomer, cosmologist, and physicist on the planet and ... you ... is a bit of a no-brainer. Again, no offense. I would say the same thing to my own mother if she believed in something unproven and untested in the face of the entire scientific community.
What bothers me the most about that picture is that every single person there is facing Trump as they pray. Makes me wonder, in fact, just WHO those people are actually praying to.
Know what I mean? With Trump in the center of the circle and everyone facing HIM?
I hope we atheists have noticed one chilling aspect to all of this: Trump and the Christian God are IDENTICAL in attitude, demeanor, ego, the need for constant praise, the need to be constantly reassured that they are in fact God/president, massive outbursts of anger, intolerance of perceived disobedience and disloyalty, the elimination of anyone who received more of the spotlight than God/Trump, and a demonstrable lack of empathy or respect for human life. I could go on, of course, but do I really need to?
It's no wonder everyone in that prayer circle appears to be praying to Trump. You can't tell God from Trump in how they act. I just wish Trump would disappear for 2,000 (and counting) years; God had the right idea.
I hadn't noticed that . But your'e right. Religious ritual is being used to boost the authority of Trump, and Jesus and his teachings can go hang, for all they care.
P.s of course, they all seem to be holding him back from shouting 'To Hell with Jesus.. I'M God!" into the mike. I only see the still. And I still have 6 months to go before I can tell AA what i really think of his live biosphere fixation..again...
Sorry if you think my post was condescending...that was not at all my approach and yes the Evolution 101 site is a great site and has a lot to offer. In fact anyone who has any misunderstanding about Evolution or has any misunderstood concepts about Evolution, should delve into that site.
So my question to you is...are you cherry picking on some areas (metamorphism) that are still being researched and investigated, in an attempt to negate Evolution?
Did you know that there is more evidence supporting Evolution then any other scientific theory we have?
Evolution is a fact...it did happen and it's a process that will continue to happen.
There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution seen in genes.
There are enormous bodies of evidence spanning multiple scientific branches that support Evolution. It's just a matter of time before Evolution becomes a Scientific Law. Right now it has enough supporting evidence to be a Scientific Law. Not one scientist working in the science community questions Evolution...we all know it's a fact of life and that it did happen. We know of all the supporting evidence that makes total sense. To us Evolution is common knowledge.
That's the beauty of science...it makes no faith claims and continues looking for answers. Unlike religions that make faith claims with no supporting evidence and then their faith claims are set in stone.
That's a terrible system...one that can never update when new discoveries are found.
Science works because we don't just stop looking for answers once something has been discovered. We keep looking and as new and more advanced technologies come out...we find even newer discoveries to add to the older discoveries. Science is always updating what we know.
No worries...a lot of people don't know that humans are primates.
I don't have time to get into this today, maybe tomorrow, but until then...
I am not making an "attempt to negate Evolution!" Sheesh!
No it isn't. Before one can ask 'Who made everything' one has to show that everything was made - as opposed to always being there in some form or other.
Like heroin?
I look forward to catching up on this thread tomorrow if I can...
Meanwhile, maybe the better question then would be how everything can always have been there in one form or other. That's a rather mind bending notion and another good question if you ask me...
I'm sure there is an answer to this question much like there is an answer to the question of how life began, but what are the answers?
The quest for those answers are much that inspires a good deal of ongoing scientific research still today and into tomorrow. I only wish I could be around when some of these answers emerge, but I fear that's not likely for me in my lifetime...
How often do we have to do this? To the questions of the origins of the universe and the origins of life, the answer is 'we don't know'. Those questions are irrelevant to either the Big bang or evolution. The evidence is that they both happened. That fact debunks Genesis -literalist Creationism, which is what has to be fought (1)
Postulating a god staring off the matter (or proto- matter) out of which the Bang -event (probably just one of many) formed, or started off the DNA replication that was for sure the basis of the first cells is not a think that has been disproven. It is debatable. There are some hypothesis about, the abiogeneis ones quite plausible. The something from nothing one is starting to take shape. There is also indirect evidence that, if a god started cosmic matter and Life, it didn't do a darn thing after that.
And that's the most we can say. Except, of course 'Which god?"
(1) along with religious influence in politics, for example.
How often do we have to do this? To the questions of the origins of the universe and the origins of life, the answer is 'we don't know'. Those questions are irrelevant to either the Big bang or evolution. The evidence is that they both happened. That fact debunks Genesis -literalist Creationism, which is what has to be fought (1)
Postulating a god staring off the matter (or proto- matter) out of which the Bang -event (probably just one of many) formed, or started off the DNA replication that was for sure the basis of the first cells is not a think that has been disproven. It is debatable. There are some hypothesis about, the abiogeneis ones quite plausible. The something from nothing one is starting to take shape. There is also indirect evidence that, if a god started cosmic matter and Life, it didn't do a darn thing after that.
And that's the most we can say. Except, of course 'Which god?"
(1) along with religious influence in politics, for example.
Yes, wouldn't that get a laugh if there was a God...and he was Shiva!
Last edited by phetaroi; 11-10-2017 at 11:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. But your'e right. Religious ritual is being used to boost the authority of Trump, and Jesus and his teachings can go hang, for all they care.
