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.
They most certainly do know how to do the atheistic two-step, ignore what is put right in front of them as they reply dancing all around it but never touching it. You can try to be serious and respectful, and what do they do with that, lie and ignore. Oh, let's not forget, two-step.
NEVER do they show how creation came about by nothing (no space, matter, and time). They can't even show how no creation was needed. And the funny thing is, they actually think they think.
"It is the deity of Atheism."
They even have a prayer too...
The prayer from the book, 'Atheism (and the like) for Dummies (because there aren't any other kind)'...
"Oh, god of nothing, we deny you exist, and you don't, but we have no choice to declare you our true god if we're honest, but we're not. Please god of nothing, help us to continually grow in offering no science to support you because there is none, but nonetheless, we devote our lives to you and will do the best act we can, no matter how absurd, no matter how embarrassing, no matter how much evidence is against us, we will use the various tactics to deny the CLEAR science against us like our biggies: ---"god-of-the-gaps", ---"that's your opinion",---"invincible man in the sky", "sky daddy", etc. ---"we don't know yet but science is working on it"---"no reputable scientists believe that"---"religion vs science"---"the bible says...."---"creationist/creatard"---"people used to believe the flat earth"---"you're a troll"---"that's not part of evolution"---"atheism is not a belief"---"burden of proof is on you"---"religion causes most wars"---"I used to be a Christain"---"you're brainwashed"---"Do you have a photograph of this creator?"---and our great tactic of changing the topic because we can't answer what is the topic so we then can say the others are ignoring us, no matter how clear it is we're the ones stuck and can't handle the topic. Who cares about fairness and honesty. Our god of nothing must be protected at ALL costs!"
"We praise you god of nothing for such phrases (and whatever else we can make up) that answer nothing, but you gave us these bowel gas words to help us deflect what we refuse to face because all of us are really weak and don't want to think, we want to be lazy and act as if we're smart, all thanks to our god of nothing that makes us all a somehow important yet our brains came from the god of nothing all by random chance from the chaos we evolved from that we just made up."
Blah, blah, blah, and you are on the canvas again.
Still waiting for YOUR PROOF your god, or any god exists. The only person here, saying something came from nothing, is YOU. The only ones dancing the 2 step, are you and your strawman. PROVE GOD. Oh you can't, take off YOUR god blinders and realize god is just a stain on your lenses.
In the beginning (of god), man created god, and he said, "now this is something I can use to explain things without using an ounce of cranial effort, research, nor facts, and then claim to be the superior intellect."
If you followed me, meaning you have not, I showed that you all start with something there already and never start with no space, matter, and time. You can look that up. Then if you followed before accusing me with your lies, just yesterday I posted some BASIC science you atheistic two-step dancers never want to touch. As I also showed, lying is typical with atheistic types. You're so typical of it.
Liar, see my reply just from yesterday. Happy lying.
Me yesterday....
---What don't I understand? Are you telling me there is a possible way I'm not aware of that nothing can create the universe? Interesting you don't supply that. Actually, it's VERY common for your side.
Now this shows how low you all go. It's 2022 and we're actually asking for proof that nothing cannot create by natural means. For sane people like me, I about have to pinch myself that this is an argument to atheistic types.
So, let me teach you some BASIC science since your common sense doesn't kick in.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all (the 1LT and 2LT) points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them.
Hope you learned something. Sorry, I didn't realize I had to give such an explanation to adults.
So can someone let me know what month or year someone thought this through that can explain with proof that something can come from nothing...no space, matter, and time?
You need to stop lying about this (which is why you refuse to address my post).
Stay out of the ring.
How did this get around the science I gave....
"Actually that is YOUR VERY argument. So come on, where is YOUR evidence that a god can speak things into existence while not himself existing (being a state of absolute non-existence)? If one can not get something from nothing, then the only other option is an eternal something, no god required. Well done, you have just refuted your own argument."
I made it clear creation has to be supernatural. How did Harry show the laws are not correct?
Did this get around it?....
"So come on, where is YOUR evidence that a god can speak things into existence while not himself existing (being a state of absolute non-existence)?"
I had to give BASIC science because you all are clearly unaware of it. Now do you want me to tell you the difference between natural and supernatural? It is a wonder that you all have the brain capacity to even take a dump, and now as clear as I showed creation can't happen by natural means, you put God as a natural entity that also can't exist. Supernatural is and shall be something you will not look up in a dictionary and see that...
-of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.--
Now I'm dealing with slow people who think God who created the natural realm supernaturally, as I showed, is somehow bound by the natural laws too. How is God bound by natural laws? I made it clear creation can't happen by natural means, none of you can get around it, so now you two-step and somehow think God must be natural too.
It's easier dealing with a rock than it is with atheistic types. A rock is a rock. I'm dealing with people who think they are smart but they can't give any evidence of it.
How did this get around the science I gave?....
"Ah, the smugness before you get the science wrong."
Oh, it was just left out what i got wrong.
How did this get around the science I gave?....
"No it does not. Real science says absolute nothing would be unstable."
How can no space, matter, and time be unstable? How clear did I have to make it that you all start with space, matter, and time? Krauss when pressed to explain his nothing will finally admit he is starting with something. He just changed the definition as if it's the scientific nothing, that just happens to have....space, matter, and time already there. Gee, I think I brought that out already in my very FIRST comment but you blind people ALL have a reading issue along with an honesty issue along with a thinking issue.
So what year will someone actually address the basic science I gave and not do the their doofus two-step.
If you want to keep showing the pathetic attempt you gave that didn't even get around the science I gave, and show you have a reading problem since I made it clear that you all start with space, matter, and time already there and YOU go and prove my point, not to mention at whatever age you are, you still don't know the difference between natural and supernatural, then go on embarrassing yourself.
"Actually that is YOUR VERY argument. So come on, where is YOUR evidence that a god can speak things into existence while not himself existing (being a state of absolute non-existence)? If one can not get something from nothing, then the only other option is an eternal something, no god required. Well done, you have just refuted your own argument."
I made it clear creation has to be supernatural. How did Harry show the laws are not correct?
Did this get around it?....
"So come on, where is YOUR evidence that a god can speak things into existence while not himself existing (being a state of absolute non-existence)?"
I had to give BASIC science because you all are clearly unaware of it. Now do you want me to tell you the difference between natural and supernatural? It is a wonder that you all have the brain capacity to even take a dump, and now as clear as I showed creation can't happen by natural means, you put God as a natural entity that also can't exist. Supernatural is and shall be something you will not look up in a dictionary and see that...
-of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.--
Now I'm dealing with slow people who think God who created the natural realm supernaturally, as I showed, is somehow bound by the natural laws too. How is God bound by natural laws? I made it clear creation can't happen by natural means, none of you can get around it, so now you two-step and somehow think God must be natural too.
It's easier dealing with a rock than it is with atheistic types. A rock is a rock. I'm dealing with people who think they are smart but they can't give any evidence of it.
How did this get around the science I gave?....
"Ah, the smugness before you get the science wrong."
Oh, it was just left out what i got wrong.
How did this get around the science I gave?....
"No it does not. Real science says absolute nothing would be unstable."
How can no space, matter, and time be unstable? How clear did I have to make it that you all start with space, matter, and time? Krauss when pressed to explain his nothing will finally admit he is starting with something. He just changed the definition as if it's the scientific nothing, that just happens to have....space, matter, and time already there. Gee, I think I brought that out already in my very FIRST comment but you blind people ALL have a reading issue along with an honesty issue along with a thinking issue.
So what year will someone actually address the basic science I gave and not do the their doofus two-step.
You did not give any science, you misrepresented it. If your version of 2Lot was true, galaxies and stars would never form (order from chaos), snowflakes would never form (order from chaos), you would never grow up (order from chaos), and you would not produce ADP (order from chaos), meaning you would die within 3 minutes.
Do you see the universally large flaw in your ignorance yet?
And how can I be arguing from starting "with space, matter, and time" when my argument was starting from absolute nothing? Why are you lying about that?
Asking "how did this get around the argument" and then simply repeating my post explaining how it actually does get around the argument does not mean I did not get around the argument, it means I explained it. All you are doing is quoting me without addressing the actual logic, as theists must do because they can not honestly answer the logic.
Sorry, your evasion (your doofus two-step), dishonesty and use of ad hominems does you no credit, it just proves how dishonest theists have to be.
If you want to keep showing the pathetic attempt you gave that didn't even get around the science I gave, and show you have a reading problem since I made it clear that you all start with space, matter, and time already there and YOU go and prove my point, not to mention at whatever age you are, you still don't know the difference between natural and supernatural, then go on embarrassing yourself.
If you have to lie for your religion, that religion is worthless.
But my condolences to your family since according to you, you must have died yesterday without ever becoming an adult, on a planet that could never form.
If you followed me, meaning you have not, I showed that you all start with something there already and never start with no space, matter, and time. You can look that up. Then if you followed before accusing me with your lies, just yesterday I posted some BASIC science you atheistic two-step dancers never want to touch. As I also showed, lying is typical with atheistic types. You're so typical of it.
Liar, see my reply just from yesterday. Happy lying.
Me yesterday....
---What don't I understand? Are you telling me there is a possible way I'm not aware of that nothing can create the universe? Interesting you don't supply that. Actually, it's VERY common for your side.
Now this shows how low you all go. It's 2022 and we're actually asking for proof that nothing cannot create by natural means. For sane people like me, I about have to pinch myself that this is an argument to atheistic types.
So, let me teach you some BASIC science since your common sense doesn't kick in.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all (the 1LT and 2LT) points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them.
Hope you learned something. Sorry, I didn't realize I had to give such an explanation to adults.
So can someone let me know what month or year someone thought this through that can explain with proof that something can come from nothing...no space, matter, and time?
As soon as you show me where I said the universe came from nothing and as soon as you show proof any god exists, we can proceed, until then it's pretty clear you are as competent as a bucket of hair.
Folks, we seem to be drifting off topic here. The topic is Belief in God drops to 81%, an all-time low based on the Gallup poll referenced in the Opening Post.
Some of the posts in the past few pages are getting pretty hostile. Please keep in mind what you agreed to when you registered your account with City-Data. Note the words underlined.
Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.
You did not give any science, you misrepresented it. If your version of 2Lot was true, galaxies and stars would never form (order from chaos), snowflakes would never form (order from chaos), you would never grow up (order from chaos), and you would not produce ADP (order from chaos), meaning you would die within 3 minutes.
Do you see the universally large flaw in your ignorance yet?
And how can I be arguing from starting "with space, matter, and time" when my argument was starting from absolute nothing? Why are you lying about that?
Asking "how did this get around the argument" and then simply repeating my post explaining how it actually does get around the argument does not mean I did not get around the argument, it means I explained it. All you are doing is quoting me without addressing the actual logic, as theists must do because they can not honestly answer the logic.
Sorry, your evasion (your doofus two-step), dishonesty and use of ad hominems does you no credit, it just proves how dishonest theists have to be.
"You did not give any science, you misrepresented it."
Isn't it just horrible how I put nothing will do nothing. I mean every atheistic type knows nothing can do something like create the universe but you're all just lacking how to back that up.
"If your version of 2Lot was true"
In your haste to do the typical two-step around what I gave, what happened to the 1LT? You just said I misrepresented science, but you just skipped how we got all this in the first place. Did you think that would not be noticed? Now I will get in trouble with the moderator because I'm calling you liars again and I'm not allowed to state the obvious. Seeing the warning below only seemed to have come up when I entered this forum and I am the one that was misrepresented and was going along with the post already that was somehow off topic but watch how I will get blamed.
Let it be NOTED you accused me AGAIN of something YOU can't back up. You now just threw out the 1LT.
"If your version of 2Lot was true"
I put...The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.
Do show the 2LT does NOT show the universe is winding down. Do show that usable energy is NOT becoming less usable. I'd be happy to touch upon what you gave but YOU are ignoring what I gave. How the moderator let you all on with your attacks that are always ignoring what I gave but now when I just start on this forum the warning sign comes out. Gee, I just wonder if the moderator is biased for atheistic types. You think?
Now you tell me how I misrepresented science in what I gave rather than continually lying and not dealing with what I actually wrote.
Hey moderator, get a load of this..."Do you see the universally large flaw in your ignorance yet?"
Moderator, do you see how I am treated unfairly as I've have shown I have.
Moderator, look at the irony here...dishonesty and use of ad hominems does you no credit, it just proves how dishonest theists have to be."
Will you kick off such members who continually lie about what I gave? Or, will I be the one that suffers?
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.
