The Super Bull Shuffle, opinion about Hitch out of the windbag city.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Super Bull Shuffle, opinion about Hitch out of the windbag city.

Out of the Chicago Tribune, we find this nice article full of stereotypes, dead philosophy and chichi bible quotes. If Mike Ditka ran the Bears like this dope makes arguments, the Bears wouldn't have won one game that year.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-201112191330--tms--cthomastq--b-a20111220dec20,0,2376108.column

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Evidence, alone, has

Quote:

Evidence, alone, has never moved anyone from unbelief to faith. 

 

No shit. That's because there IS no evidence that could reasonably do it.

There ARE, on the other hand, plenty of people who have examined the evidence and moved from faith to 'unbelief'.  

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Total facepalmI have read

Total facepalm

I have read there are around a billion atheists in the world. How is that a tiny minority?

How is it wise to blindly follow some primitive goat herders that are long dead?

When did Peggy Lee become a brilliant philosopher?

This guy is a moron.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Seems like he used his

 Seems like he used his soapbox to make himself feel better about his beliefs by attacking atheists and atheism as much as possible while still getting through his editor.  He didn't pay much attention to making truthful claims as long as the claims supported the idea that it was good to be a theist.

Cal Thomas of Chicago Tribune is a weak man.  Brian, good work on the creative play on words with the Super Bull Shuffle.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

I'm glad Cal Thomas pointed out that atheism has been around since the dawn of humanity and that Hitchens was smart, but I don't like his quote from Proverbs 9:10, "The fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom."  I like Socrates' quote much better, "Wisdom begins in wonder."  (That's not a full definition of wisdom but it's much better than Proverbs 9:10!)  I don't know if it's a compliment or an insult when someone says, "You're really smart, but I disagree with you," or "You're intelligent, but not wise."  Maybe it's both.

Cal Thomas said, "...atheists demand physical proof of God's existence, as if they could bring God down and make Him into their image.  What kind of God would that be?  He would be their equal and, thus, not God at all."  That sounds like what Jesus was, God becoming human and, thus, in our image.  A lot of gods were demi-gods, including Cal Thomas' god.

His argument from miracles doesn't work and Hitchens pointed this out many times.  And like Sam Harris points out, Sathya Sai Baba supposedly had miraculous powers (walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, a miraculous conception) and thousands of eyewitnesses attested to this claim -- and this was in the 21st century.  But somehow if you move these miracles back 2,000 years through dubiously translated books and letters, they become more credible.   

Then Thomas attacks Hitchens' book title, God is Not Great, saying "It's a clever title, but how would he have known, since they had not been properly introduced?"  It annoys me when people misinterpret the title.  Maybe a more accurate title would have been "God, the character in The Bible and The Koran, is not great"; but that's not catchy and it's too cumbersome.    

After that, Thomas quotes the singer Peggy Lee about atheists thinking that there's no afterlife, "Is that all there is?  If that's all there is to life, then let's break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all there is."  Now, I've got no problem with breaking out the booze and having a ball, but I can't do it all day every day -- I don't have the psychological, social, and neurochemical ability to do so, let alone the money.  There's a limit to how much pleasure people can neurochemically experience, and it's hard to maintain.

To top it all off, Thomas goes into the classic of religion, that they invented morality and that we can't be moral without God.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Seems like

Sapient wrote:

 Seems like he used his soapbox to make himself feel better about his beliefs by attacking atheists and atheism as much as possible while still getting through his editor.  He didn't pay much attention to making truthful claims as long as the claims supported the idea that it was good to be a theist.

Carl Thomas of Chicago Tribune is a weak man.  Brian, good work on the creative play on words with the Super Bull Shuffle.

 

 

My mom fed me lead paint and told me they were corn flakes. Thats how you come up with the really corny crap I come up with. Its a hobby.

It's like that line Ace Ventura, "once you crawl into this mind, there ain't no going back".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
What an asshole

What an asshole this guy is for using a man's death to write such drivel about Atheism.

Just shows what cheap shots these assholes can be.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:What

harleysportster wrote:

What an asshole this guy is for using a man's death to write such drivel about Atheism.

Just shows what cheap shots these assholes can be.

Harley, Hitchens wouldn't care. Hitchens the day Falwell died said "If you gave him an enema you could stick him in a matchbox". Hitchens would care more about their bad use of logic, not their timing or their personal opinion of him.

You are reacting to this opinion, Hitchens is dead, he cant react to anything. I'd call him an asshole, because of his smug attitude and narcissism, and bad use of logic, but not because his timing.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: What

Double post, sorry.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

What an asshole this guy is for using a man's death to write such drivel about Atheism.

Just shows what cheap shots these assholes can be.

Harley, Hitchens wouldn't care. Hitchens the day Falwell died said "If you gave him an enema you could stick him in a matchbox". Hitchens would care more about their bad use of logic, not their timing or their personal opinion of him.

You are reacting to this opinion, Hitchens is dead, he cant react to anything. I'd call him an asshole, because of his smug attitude and narcissism, and bad use of logic, but not because his timing.

You have got a good point there.  I remember, in one interview, they asked Hitchens " Your detractor said that you were a fat-ass, drunken, smoking, bohemian, left-wing nutcase "

Hitchens response ? "And that is a bad thing ? They should see my ass now,".

None of the petty criticism that his detractors  ever through at him ever bothered him.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Critique Oblique

The article itself had little to do with Hitchens and more to do with a two bit hack taking opportunistic glee at taking cliched and hackneyed pot shots at Atheist in general. It's fallacious assertions are childish, the mark of a talentless man sniping at his betters.


Fuck Him.

LC >;-}>

 


 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:The

Louis_Cypher wrote:

The article itself had little to do with Hitchens and more to do with a two bit hack taking opportunistic glee at taking cliched and hackneyed pot shots at Atheist in general. It's fallacious assertions are childish, the mark of a talentless man sniping at his betters.


Fuck Him.

LC >;-}>

 


 

I swear, the more you talk the more you sound just like Hitchens. But you know even without him, I am glad we still have you.

And yea, fuck him.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
HumanVuvuzela wrote:That's

HumanVuvuzela wrote:
That's because there IS no evidence

Your statement!!

HumanVuvuzela wrote:
There ARE, on the other hand, plenty of people who have examined the evidence and moved from faith to 'unbelief'.

How can people examine the evidence if there is NO evidence. Again, the irrational worldview of atheism.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:HumanVuvuzela

Lee2216 wrote:

HumanVuvuzela wrote:
That's because there IS no evidence

Your statement!!

HumanVuvuzela wrote:
There ARE, on the other hand, plenty of people who have examined the evidence and moved from faith to 'unbelief'.

How can people examine the evidence if there is NO evidence. Again, the irrational worldview of atheism.

How can you examine giant invisible teapots orbiting Jupiter if they are invisible and there is no evidence for them?

How can you examine snarfwidgets if I have no evidence for snarfwidgets.

What is irrational is defaulting to something being true without evidence. Otherwise those absurd claims above would be true because you cant prove they are not true.

You do not take into account modern science that PROVES that the only place we find cognition is within biological evolution. Thus considering a non material human like "entity" with magic super powers is as fruitful as considering invisible teapots or snarfwidgits.

The rational explanation for WHY you believe is that it is part of our flawed evolution which defaults far too often to gap filling as a placebo mechanism as a way for our species to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence. It is merely YOU projecting human qualities on non human objects/ideas/concepts. It is merely all in your head and merely your imagination.

For the same reason you reject claims of the sun being a god, like the Egyptians falsely believed for 3,000 years, I reject your pet god claim as well. They made it up and you are doing no differently either.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Let me get my hip waders, the bullshit is getting deep.

Quick lee... name ONE thing in the universe that requires the supernatural to function.
It's a big universe, surely if your god exists he left some real quantifiable trace?
Anything? Anything at all?

 

There is a great deal of historical, anthropological and archeological evidence that points out that YOUR god is an invention of desert savages in the early bronze age. There is a LOT of evidence that the folk tales enshrined in your book are just that, folk tales with no valid historical roots. There was no world wide flood, no exodus, no Hebrew attack on Jericho, no Tower of Babal, and the evidence of a Davidic Kingdom rests on one or two shards of stone that MAY have the word David on them. Do I even need to point out that snakes, donkeys and flaming shrubbery don't actually talk? That the world formed over a space of millions of years, not 6 days.

I know you are desperate lee... or you wouldn't make silly little sniping attacks over a turn of phrase, but for goodness sake man, show SOME dignity.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What is

Brian37 wrote:
What is irrational is defaulting to something being true without evidence.

Which is exactly what you do Brian.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I know

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I know you are desperate lee... or you wouldn't make silly little sniping attacks over a turn of phrase, but for goodness sake man, show SOME dignity.

Hardly!! I'm not attacking I'm simply pointing out his illogical statement. He said it I didn't.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
I see...

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I know you are desperate lee... or you wouldn't make silly little sniping attacks over a turn of phrase, but for goodness sake man, show SOME dignity.

Hardly!! I'm not attacking I'm simply pointing out his illogical statement. He said it I didn't.

 

You don't actually understand what logic means, do you?
He said that (paraphrasing, my memory isn't what it used to be...I think) one can not default to a positive assertion simply because one can't disprove it. 'God exists' is not the default position. 'No God exists' is. You can prove it false easily enough by providing evidence...

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Brian37

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
What is irrational is defaulting to something being true without evidence.

Which is exactly what you do Brian.

 

No, do not compare me to you. Don't project your own insecurities of your own lack of evidence on me. WE are NOT doing the same thing, not even close.

Good logic works like this.

Prior established data=plugged into prior established formula=projected outcome.

WITH the oversight of independent testing and independent peer review.

None of that above is dependent on belief in ANY fictional being to do.

YOU however depend on credulity and willful ignorance.

Naked assertion<=claimed tradition and superstition<=desired outcome

You work backwards with your logic. You start by assuming. Just like the Egyptians falsely assumed the sun was a god.

None of what you do requires testing at all. All you have to do to believe in a god is to swallow one pre made or make one up yourself. Buying and marketing fictional beings does not have the same high standard of scientific method.

Thor, Vishnu, Osirus, Allah, Yahweh, Apollo are all mere inventions of humans projecting their own qualities and desires on fictional beings falsely believing them to be real.  None of those god/s required one lick of testing or falsification.

I am NOT starting with nothing. We KNOW scientifically what DNA is. We know evolution is the ONLY place we find cognition. Those are NOT facts I made up. Those are facts scientists have found in biological evolution.

Do not blame me for the bull somebody wrote in an ignorant age that I had nothing to do with in writing. It is also not my fault you fell for your myth. That is your baggage. What you are doing is as silly as getting angry at someone telling you the earth is not flat.

I am sorry. The moon is not made of cheese. There is no tooth fairy an claims of invisible friends, past and present, monotheist and polytheist, are merely the products of human imagination.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote: 'God

Louis_Cypher wrote:
 'God exists' is not the default position. 'No God exists' is. You can prove it false easily enough by providing evidence...

"The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position" is itself an affirmative proposition, so requires proof in itself!

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:"The burden of

Lee2216 wrote:

"The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position" is itself an affirmative proposition, so requires proof in itself!

What?  Saying that something DOES exist is the affirmative position.  You claim God exist, so you require proof for that assertion.

You can't just sidestep that fact by calling the statement itself an affirmative position.

I, on the other hand, claim to know nothing about this "God's" existence as I see no proof for it.  You show me some proof and I will immediately change my stance.  Till then, I'm staying an Agnostic Atheist.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am NOT

Brian37 wrote:
I am NOT starting with nothing. We KNOW scientifically what DNA is. We know evolution is the ONLY place we find cognition. Those are NOT facts I made up. Those are facts scientists have found in biological evolution.

You are an atheist aren't you? So you are starting with nothing. According to your logic nothing created everything in the universe which is not logical at all. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning so it has a cause. That's logical! Nothing created the universe....foolishness!!! DNA contains information which comes from an intelligent mind. I don't know why you can't get that thru your thick skull.

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:You are an

Lee2216 wrote:

You are an atheist aren't you? So you are starting with nothing. According to your logic nothing created everything in the universe which is not logical at all. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning so it has a cause. That's logical! Nothing created the universe....foolishness!!! DNA contains information which comes from an intelligent mind. I don't know why you can't get that thru your thick skull.

Lad, a friendly piece of advice.  When you speak of scientific theories that you know nothing about you look really foolish.  The Big Bang theory does NOT state that the Universe came from "nothing".  It came from a singularity.

Crap, dude.  You live in the Information Age.  Look up the theory on a scientific website and know what you are talking about.

Silly, theists.  These guys always crack me up.

Do you ask the "If humans came from chimps why are there still chimps?" question as well?  haha.  Classic.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:You are an

Lee2216 wrote:

You are an atheist aren't you? So you are starting with nothing.

Lee, do yourself a favor.  For the next 5 posts you make do nothing but ask questions.  See if you can do it, challenge yourself.  You'll learn a little something.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok, you owe me for the nosebleed from that face palm...

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
 'God exists' is not the default position. 'No God exists' is. You can prove it false easily enough by providing evidence...

"The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position" is itself an affirmative proposition, so requires proof in itself!

 

I usually don't just toss out an insult... but can you REALLY be that stupid? I mean, is being that much of a dumbass like being really stoned all the time?

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 This was a letter sent by

 This was a letter sent by one of our readers to Carl Thomas...

 

Mr. Thomas,

I have just read your article "Death of an Atheist" from chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-201112191330--tms--cthomastq--b-a20111220dec20,0,2376108.column) about the death of Christopher Hitchens, and I have to say I am extremely disappointed.

As an atheist and (what some would call a believer) in the scientific method (a physical method of trial and error that has been proven to work over and over and still working to this day), your arguments for the existence of a god are laughable at best.

You quote scripture as some kind of evidence for your argument. The scientific method has shown us that in order for a theory to become accepted, repeatable results must be presented. You have presented but 1 piece of evidence, which was written by man and thus is void in your original argument.

You also claim that atheism "may be the world's smallest minority group, one that gets smaller still as its members pass on and meet God face to face." You do understand that atheists are one of the largest "minority" groups in the United States (I know you claim world, but if you are taking bits and pieces for your argument, I feel I might as well too right? After all we can't count on the polls in Europe where atheists are the majority in certain countries)? As far as "one that gets small still as its members pass on", you really should do some reading as general polls show that secularism is on the rise in America.

"...as they pass on and meet God face to face" stuck me as an interesting comment. Has this happened to you personally sir? I find it hard to take your words seriously if you haven't experienced this for yourself. I could answer quite simply "How do you know that is what happens when we die?"

"Evidence, alone, has never moved anyone from unbelief to faith." This is quite a simple statement to rebut, as there is no evidence to move one from unbelief to faith. Usually presented evidence moves people in the opposite direction. As for your argument "well the bible says...", please see my above paragraphs regarding the validity of arguments made using the bible as supporting evidence.

"Why contribute to charity, or perform other good deeds? Without a source to inspire charity, such acts are sentimental affectations, devoid of meaning and purpose." I don't supposed "Do unto others and they have done unto you" is appropriate in this area? Yes, an atheist can quote the bible. While I despise the overall message that is so holy to many people, there are some good ideas outlined in that message (although there is a strange correlation between the ignoring of those good ideas and the religious zeal of those who follow the doctrine). As an atheist, yes I have given to charity, I have donated food to those who cannot feed themselves, I have helped other in need that leads to no gain for myself, and I do it because I would hope someone would do the same for me if I were in need. Now you have to ask yourself a question: Who is more just? The one who does good and helps others that expects to be rewarded someday (we'll call that reward heaven),
or the one who does the exact same things that does not believe a reward is coming?

"Hitchens was a gifted writer, but who gave him the gift? Why was he not a gifted actor, surgeon or athlete? Why was he not talentless?" First things first; who gave him the gift? Well I assume, as he was a published writer, he went to college and pursued a degree that had something to do with writing. So if you're looking to thank someone for him, thank those who taught him at the university he attended. Second, I think it is safe to assume that if he wanted to be a gifted actor, surgeon, or athlete, he would have pursued those courses of a career other than writing. His interest was peaked more in writing that acting, medicine, or sports. As far as someone being "talentless", I would be hard pressed to find someone who has zero talents at all. Those who do not develop desires such as Hitchens did have learned to get good at something along the courses of their lives. Everyone has something they are good at, but who are you to call what they can do
important?

"Does such a view lead to ethics that must inevitably be situational?" I think we can safely say that ethics are, in fact, situational. Would you kill 1 man to save 10? 100? 1,000? No? Then would you kill the same man who is a threat to you and/or your family? Ask yourself this question when you start to see morality as a thick, bold line.

"...there is no joy in the death of one who had faith that God does not exist. Hitchens now knows the truth and that can only be the worst possible news for him." Is there ANY joy in death? Or just joy in the deaths of those who disagree with you? As for "Hitchens now knows the truth", please see my above remark regarding that statement.

"As for the atheists still with us, Christmas is a reminder there is still time to believe and receive the ultimate gift." Christmas has evolved from celebrating the birth of savior-prophets (and I say it as a plural because Jesus isn't the only mythological being with a birthday of December 25th) to mass consumerism, overindulging, and time around people you couldn't care less about for the other 364 days of the year. As for an "ultimate gift", I still have not seen evidence for that, so I think the jury is still out on that one.

When you talk about the death of an important person in a movement, I think it is best to highlight what they have done, not throw false arguments and logic over the work done by those who died, just because this person disagreed with your point of view.

Thank you,
Tom Z. Atheist

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Lee2216

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

You are an atheist aren't you? So you are starting with nothing. According to your logic nothing created everything in the universe which is not logical at all. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning so it has a cause. That's logical! Nothing created the universe....foolishness!!! DNA contains information which comes from an intelligent mind. I don't know why you can't get that thru your thick skull.

Lad, a friendly piece of advice.  When you speak of scientific theories that you know nothing about you look really foolish.  The Big Bang theory does NOT state that the Universe came from "nothing".  It came from a singularity.

Crap, dude.  You live in the Information Age.  Look up the theory on a scientific website and know what you are talking about.

Silly, theists.  These guys always crack me up.

Do you ask the "If humans came from chimps why are there still chimps?" question as well?  haha.  Classic.

I didn't say anything about a Big Bang Theory or a singularity I said according to your belief system nothing created the universe. You don't understand?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:I didn't say

Lee2216 wrote:

I didn't say anything about a Big Bang Theory or a singularity I said according to your belief system nothing created the universe. You don't understand?

If I was a theist I would say that the Universe came from God or I could say the Universe was created by God.  That's just a matter of word choice.

However, if you are talking about what caused the expansion of the Universe to begin from the Singularity it is not contained within that theory.  Just as Abiogenesis is not covered in the Theory of Evolution. 

Before the Big Bang there was no time or space.  In a realm of no time nor space it is possible to have an event with no cause.  There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Watcher

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

You are an atheist aren't you? So you are starting with nothing. According to your logic nothing created everything in the universe which is not logical at all. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning so it has a cause. That's logical! Nothing created the universe....foolishness!!! DNA contains information which comes from an intelligent mind. I don't know why you can't get that thru your thick skull.

Lad, a friendly piece of advice.  When you speak of scientific theories that you know nothing about you look really foolish.  The Big Bang theory does NOT state that the Universe came from "nothing".  It came from a singularity.

Crap, dude.  You live in the Information Age.  Look up the theory on a scientific website and know what you are talking about.

Silly, theists.  These guys always crack me up.

Do you ask the "If humans came from chimps why are there still chimps?" question as well?  haha.  Classic.

I didn't say anything about a Big Bang Theory or a singularity I said according to your belief system nothing created the universe. You don't understand?

Stop Lee. You are embarrassing yourself.

No one knows what happened before the "singularity". WHAT WE DO KNOW, is that those processes that became the singularity,  DO NOT look like or resemble a human like brain. Thus either way, if it came from something OR nothing a cognition EITHER WAY would NOT be required.

You are assuming a WHO is needed for the cause of everything, when there is NO evidence of cognition outside biological evolution.

You accept that Thor did not make lightening and lightening needs absolutely no cognition to happen. You know that lightening is the result of a PROCESS, not a who.

Science is working on the cause BEFORE the singularity before the big bang. But IT WILL NOT LEAD TO A FUCKING WHO, and it doesn't matter if the universe came from nothing or something. WHATEVER it is it will be just like lightening, it will be the cause of a WHAT! Not a  magical who with magical super powers.

SCIENTIFICALLY every time we find cognition it is the result of evolution. Since the universe DOES NOT look like a brain and doesn't have neurons like a human brain, what came before it would not be able to think anymore than lightening could think or be caused by a who.

Steven Hawkins would know a little about the universe I'd think. And Neil Degrees Tyson, would BOTH tell you that a cognition is not required to explain the universe or evolution. And Richard Dawkins who IS an evolutionary biologist would tell you that there is no such thing as cognition outside evolution.

AND  we also have a long history as a species of making up crap and falsely believing crap. There is lots of crap you don't swallow that other people do. Not just on the issue of religion but even outside religion. Crap is crap and woo is woo.

You merely like the idea of having a super hero. SO WHAT, so does Furry who is Jewish, so do Muslims and so do Hindus and so did the Ancient Egyptians.

What none of you have is any evidence that a magical who even exists and what science does have is evidence that a WHO IS NOT REQUIRED for any type of explanation for evolution or the universe.

MUCH LESS a magical who with magical super powers.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Lee2216

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

I didn't say anything about a Big Bang Theory or a singularity I said according to your belief system nothing created the universe. You don't understand?

If I was a theist I would say that the Universe came from God or I could say the Universe was created by God.  That's just a matter of word choice.

However, if you are talking about what caused the expansion of the Universe to begin from the Singularity it is not contained within that theory.  Just as Abiogenesis is not covered in the Theory of Evolution. 

Before the Big Bang there was no time or space.  In a realm of no time nor space it is possible to have an event with no cause.  There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

No, we don't know what happened before the singularity or the big bang.

The important issue isn't that the universe was caused or or came from nothing. The important issue is that neither require a cognition. Just like lightening or a hurricane does not need a thinking being to happen.

I lean to a non cognitive "something" causing that singularity and big bang. If we observe cycles in everything from the sun, to life, then it would not surprise me that our universe came from the decay from a prior event. It would not surprise me that when our universe suffers heat death, that it will create a new universe.

Just like a rotting leaf becomes nutrients for the grass and other trees that grow from use of that fuel.

QM does not rule out either, but it does not point to a cognition as a requirement.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:I didn't say

Lee2216 wrote:
I didn't say anything about a Big Bang Theory or a singularity I said according to your belief system nothing created the universe. You don't understand?

This is comedy gold. You should do standup. You're so ignorant you can't even communicate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Brian37

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
What is irrational is defaulting to something being true without evidence.

Which is exactly what you do Brian.

 

Why does that matter? There ARE people here with scientific degrees and much more knowledge of history of religion than I have. No one is going to ask you to simply just take my word for it and there is plenty of evidence on the net in which you can do your own research which confirms what, not only what I say, but those with the degrees say.

Beyond is an atheist. He and I are polar opposites on economics. He too pulls the same crap 'What do you know" on that issue. So when I point out OTHER people with the same degree of knowledge he claims to have who disagree with him, he too, doesn't have to take my word for it.

Now I am NOT a scientist. But you don't have to be able to build a car to know how to drive it  and to know it does not run on pixy dust.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is not complicated at all. A grade school kid can understand the concept. It boils down to simply testing and comparing through that testing and observation. THAT IS ALL IT basically amounts to.

People like you confuse the tool with the person using the tool. The hammer is simple, the house the person builds the hammer with is complex.

Do you have to be a neurosurgeon to know Santa is not real? Do you have to be football player to know there is no hockey puck in football? I've never played one down in the NFL, and I can't tell you the play strategies, but I do know the rules and player's positions and what their jobs are.

Do you know what a counter tray is" Do you know what a play fake is? I still have a problem spotting those things and most fans of the NFL other than the rabid fans couldn't tell you. But all the fans know what a kicker is, what a QB does and what pass interference is.

Scientific fields would be equal to the strategy. Scientific method would be equal to all the fields in all the stadiums in the NFL league being the same standard size. No matter if you are studying biology or medicine or space, METHOD merely means to test and compare and independently have your findings kicked around as a form of quality control.

Without METHOD, it would be like every team in the NFL having different rules and different sized fields for each team. It would be simply making crap up with no standard.

So why do I lean to scientific method as a laymen? Because you and I are typing on computers that were invented because of the simple concept of testing and observation. You and I have access to transportation because of testing and observation. We put humans on the moon because of testing and observation. We have cures for diseases now which 100 years ago would be a death sentence.

What do I do? Something you don't do. I don't fill in the gaps of knowledge with wishful thinking. There has to be a standard otherwise humanity can simply make shit up.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Lee2216

Brian37 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
What is irrational is defaulting to something being true without evidence.

Which is exactly what you do Brian.

 

Why does that matter? There ARE people here with scientific degrees and much more knowledge of history of religion than I have. No one is going to ask you to simply just take my word for it and there is plenty of evidence on the net in which you can do your own research which confirms what, not only what I say, but those with the degrees say.

Beyond is an atheist. He and I are polar opposites on economics. He too pulls the same crap 'What do you know" on that issue. So when I point out OTHER people with the same degree of knowledge he claims to have who disagree with him, he too, doesn't have to take my word for it.

Now I am NOT a scientist. But you don't have to be able to build a car to know how to drive it  and to know it does not run on pixy dust.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is not complicated at all. A grade school kid can understand the concept. It boils down to simply testing and comparing through that testing and observation. THAT IS ALL IT basically amounts to.

People like you confuse the tool with the person using the tool. The hammer is simple, the house the person builds the hammer with is complex.

Do you have to be a neurosurgeon to know Santa is not real? Do you have to be football player to know there is no hockey puck in football? I've never played one down in the NFL, and I can't tell you the play strategies, but I do know the rules and player's positions and what their jobs are.

Do you know what a counter tray is" Do you know what a play fake is? I still have a problem spotting those things and most fans of the NFL other than the rabid fans couldn't tell you. But all the fans know what a kicker is, what a QB does and what pass interference is.

Scientific fields would be equal to the strategy. Scientific method would be equal to all the fields in all the stadiums in the NFL league being the same standard size. No matter if you are studying biology or medicine or space, METHOD merely means to test and compare and independently have your findings kicked around as a form of quality control.

Without METHOD, it would be like every team in the NFL having different rules and different sized fields for each team. It would be simply making crap up with no standard.

So why do I lean to scientific method as a laymen? Because you and I are typing on computers that were invented because of the simple concept of testing and observation. You and I have access to transportation because of testing and observation. We put humans on the moon because of testing and observation. We have cures for diseases now which 100 years ago would be a death sentence.

What do I do? Something you don't do. I don't fill in the gaps of knowledge with wishful thinking. There has to be a standard otherwise humanity can simply make shit up.

You can't even put forth in your own framework a justification of why your reasoning is trustworthy or even worthwhile.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Lee2216

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

I didn't say anything about a Big Bang Theory or a singularity I said according to your belief system nothing created the universe. You don't understand?

If I was a theist I would say that the Universe came from God or I could say the Universe was created by God.  That's just a matter of word choice.

However, if you are talking about what caused the expansion of the Universe to begin from the Singularity it is not contained within that theory.  Just as Abiogenesis is not covered in the Theory of Evolution. 

Before the Big Bang there was no time or space.  In a realm of no time nor space it is possible to have an event with no cause.  There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

You still don't understand!! Anything which has a BEGINNING has a CAUSE.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Lee2216 wrote:I

Vastet wrote:
Lee2216 wrote:
I didn't say anything about a Big Bang Theory or a singularity I said according to your belief system nothing created the universe. You don't understand?
This is comedy gold. You should do standup. You're so ignorant you can't even communicate.

If I didn't communicate properly why the response? Crap, I almost forgot, your response was just a random chemical reaction in your brain so I'll excuse your childish insults.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Watcher

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

You still don't understand!! Anything which has a BEGINNING has a CAUSE.

No, you don't understand.   In the dimension of Time first A happens and then B happens.   That's because with the dimension of Time you have past, present, and future.

Before the Universe started expanding there was no Height, Width, Breadth, or Time.   No before.  No after.

Cause and Effect don't apply.

The first second of time ticked by when the expansion started.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Brian37

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
What is irrational is defaulting to something being true without evidence.

Which is exactly what you do Brian.

 

Why does that matter? There ARE people here with scientific degrees and much more knowledge of history of religion than I have. No one is going to ask you to simply just take my word for it and there is plenty of evidence on the net in which you can do your own research which confirms what, not only what I say, but those with the degrees say.

Beyond is an atheist. He and I are polar opposites on economics. He too pulls the same crap 'What do you know" on that issue. So when I point out OTHER people with the same degree of knowledge he claims to have who disagree with him, he too, doesn't have to take my word for it.

Now I am NOT a scientist. But you don't have to be able to build a car to know how to drive it  and to know it does not run on pixy dust.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is not complicated at all. A grade school kid can understand the concept. It boils down to simply testing and comparing through that testing and observation. THAT IS ALL IT basically amounts to.

People like you confuse the tool with the person using the tool. The hammer is simple, the house the person builds the hammer with is complex.

Do you have to be a neurosurgeon to know Santa is not real? Do you have to be football player to know there is no hockey puck in football? I've never played one down in the NFL, and I can't tell you the play strategies, but I do know the rules and player's positions and what their jobs are.

Do you know what a counter tray is" Do you know what a play fake is? I still have a problem spotting those things and most fans of the NFL other than the rabid fans couldn't tell you. But all the fans know what a kicker is, what a QB does and what pass interference is.

Scientific fields would be equal to the strategy. Scientific method would be equal to all the fields in all the stadiums in the NFL league being the same standard size. No matter if you are studying biology or medicine or space, METHOD merely means to test and compare and independently have your findings kicked around as a form of quality control.

Without METHOD, it would be like every team in the NFL having different rules and different sized fields for each team. It would be simply making crap up with no standard.

So why do I lean to scientific method as a laymen? Because you and I are typing on computers that were invented because of the simple concept of testing and observation. You and I have access to transportation because of testing and observation. We put humans on the moon because of testing and observation. We have cures for diseases now which 100 years ago would be a death sentence.

What do I do? Something you don't do. I don't fill in the gaps of knowledge with wishful thinking. There has to be a standard otherwise humanity can simply make shit up.

You can't even put forth in your own framework a justification of why your reasoning is trustworthy or even worthwhile.

Now you are just being obtuse.

Ok lets have it your way for argument's sake, "Brian37 is a retard with no brain"

Fine then explain to me Darwin, Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, Neil Degrees Tyson, and Bob Spence here WHO have degrees would agree with me the "retard with no brain"?

I have put forth the framework that even a FUCKING grade school kid can understand. Observe, test , falsify and have your findings independently checked. That is not only my framework, that is what science is based on, all science.

Seriously, if you think that is bunk, how do you manage to type on this computer? Why not just pray the keys stroke themselves?

If science sucks so bad, stop fucking using your computer, don't drive a car, don't watch tv, don't go to the doctor, because your invisible friend already explains everything.

I am so glad science doesn't work the way you wish it would or want to believe it works, we'd still think the earth was flat.

How does it feel to be schooled by a retard?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Lee2216

Watcher wrote:
No, you don't understand.   In the dimension of Time first A happens and then B happens.   That's because with the dimension of Time you have past, present, and future.

Before the Universe started expanding there was no Height, Width, Breadth, or Time.   No before.  No after.

Cause and Effect don't apply.The first second of time ticked by when the expansion started.

Oh my lord!! I'm trying  to be patient with you. Did the universe have a beginning? Give me a one word answer, yay or nay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Of course.   However,

Of course.   However, there was nothing before the very first second of it's beginning because there was no TIME before the first second of the Universe.  Nor was there space.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Watcher

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

You still don't understand!! Anything which has a BEGINNING has a CAUSE.

No, you don't understand.   In the dimension of Time first A happens and then B happens.   That's because with the dimension of Time you have past, present, and future.

Before the Universe started expanding there was no Height, Width, Breadth, or Time.   No before.  No after.

Cause and Effect don't apply.

The first second of time ticked by when the expansion started.

Oh my lord!! I'm trying  to be patient with you. Did the universe have a beginning? Give me a one word answer, yay or nay.

 

Why? Your PREMISE IS FALSE. The point is, that NOT everything that has a 'beginning' has a cause. This has been pointed out to you before. Radioactive decay for example has NO CAUSE. The universe began, since there was no BEFORE there can BE NO CAUSE.

Let me repeat... your PREMISE IS FALSE. Get it?

 

LC >:-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Lee2216

Brian37 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
What is irrational is defaulting to something being true without evidence.

Which is exactly what you do Brian.

 

Why does that matter? There ARE people here with scientific degrees and much more knowledge of history of religion than I have. No one is going to ask you to simply just take my word for it and there is plenty of evidence on the net in which you can do your own research which confirms what, not only what I say, but those with the degrees say.

Beyond is an atheist. He and I are polar opposites on economics. He too pulls the same crap 'What do you know" on that issue. So when I point out OTHER people with the same degree of knowledge he claims to have who disagree with him, he too, doesn't have to take my word for it.

Now I am NOT a scientist. But you don't have to be able to build a car to know how to drive it  and to know it does not run on pixy dust.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is not complicated at all. A grade school kid can understand the concept. It boils down to simply testing and comparing through that testing and observation. THAT IS ALL IT basically amounts to.

People like you confuse the tool with the person using the tool. The hammer is simple, the house the person builds the hammer with is complex.

Do you have to be a neurosurgeon to know Santa is not real? Do you have to be football player to know there is no hockey puck in football? I've never played one down in the NFL, and I can't tell you the play strategies, but I do know the rules and player's positions and what their jobs are.

Do you know what a counter tray is" Do you know what a play fake is? I still have a problem spotting those things and most fans of the NFL other than the rabid fans couldn't tell you. But all the fans know what a kicker is, what a QB does and what pass interference is.

Scientific fields would be equal to the strategy. Scientific method would be equal to all the fields in all the stadiums in the NFL league being the same standard size. No matter if you are studying biology or medicine or space, METHOD merely means to test and compare and independently have your findings kicked around as a form of quality control.

Without METHOD, it would be like every team in the NFL having different rules and different sized fields for each team. It would be simply making crap up with no standard.

So why do I lean to scientific method as a laymen? Because you and I are typing on computers that were invented because of the simple concept of testing and observation. You and I have access to transportation because of testing and observation. We put humans on the moon because of testing and observation. We have cures for diseases now which 100 years ago would be a death sentence.

What do I do? Something you don't do. I don't fill in the gaps of knowledge with wishful thinking. There has to be a standard otherwise humanity can simply make shit up.

You can't even put forth in your own framework a justification of why your reasoning is trustworthy or even worthwhile.

Now you are just being obtuse.

Ok lets have it your way for argument's sake, "Brian37 is a retard with no brain"

Fine then explain to me Darwin, Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, Neil Degrees Tyson, and Bob Spence here WHO have degrees would agree with me the "retard with no brain"?

I have put forth the framework that even a FUCKING grade school kid can understand. Observe, test , falsify and have your findings independently checked. That is not only my framework, that is what science is based on, all science.

Seriously, if you think that is bunk, how do you manage to type on this computer? Why not just pray the keys stroke themselves?

If science sucks so bad, stop fucking using your computer, don't drive a car, don't watch tv, don't go to the doctor, because your invisible friend already explains everything.

I am so glad science doesn't work the way you wish it would or want to believe it works, we'd still think the earth was flat.

How does it feel to be schooled by a retard?

You totally missed my point Brian! I'm not talking about scientific framework. I agree with observe, test and falsify. I was referring to your atheistic framework. Your naturalistic philosophy can't provide any basis for ethics and is void of any meaning and undercuts rationality itself. In your worldview, thoughts and reasoning are just chemical reactions in your brain. As I said, in your own framework you can't justify why your reasoning is trustworthy or even worthwhile. Actually, you surreptitiously borrow many of the standards of Christianity in order to assail Christian belief. 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Of course.  

Watcher wrote:

Of course.   However, there was nothing before the very first second of it's beginning because there was no TIME before the first second of the Universe.  Nor was there space.

Ok, you agree with me the universe had a beginning. What caused the universe to begin? If there were nothing before the universe existed we would still have nothing. From nothing, nothing comes.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Lee2216

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

You still don't understand!! Anything which has a BEGINNING has a CAUSE.

No, you don't understand.   In the dimension of Time first A happens and then B happens.   That's because with the dimension of Time you have past, present, and future.

Before the Universe started expanding there was no Height, Width, Breadth, or Time.   No before.  No after.

Cause and Effect don't apply.

The first second of time ticked by when the expansion started.

Oh my lord!! I'm trying  to be patient with you. Did the universe have a beginning? Give me a one word answer, yay or nay.

 

Why? Your PREMISE IS FALSE. The point is, that NOT everything that has a 'beginning' has a cause. This has been pointed out to you before. Radioactive decay for example has NO CAUSE. The universe began, since there was no BEFORE there can BE NO CAUSE.

Let me repeat... your PREMISE IS FALSE. Get it?

 

LC >:-}>

 

What caused the universe to begin?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Ok, you agree

Lee2216 wrote:

Ok, you agree with me the universe had a beginning. What caused the universe to begin? If there were nothing before the universe existed we would still have nothing. From nothing, nothing comes.

In order for something to have caused the beginning there had to be the dimension of Time before the beginning.

But there wasn't.

Cause and Effect do not apply.

DO NOT APPLY.

CAUSE DOES NOT APPLY.

EFFECT DOES NOT APPLY.

Cause and Effect can only happen in the dimension of Time.

There was NO TIME BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF the UNIVERSE.

Holy fuck, if you still can't understand this simple concept I'm just going to give up on you on this subject.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Of course.  

Watcher wrote:

Of course.   However, there was nothing before the very first second of it's beginning because there was no TIME before the first second of the Universe.  Nor was there space.

Science has NOT concluded what came before that singularity. All I was saying was that either way, time existing, space existing OR NOT EXISTING, either way, neither would require a cognition as an explanation.

I am not arguing with you. I am saying that THEY cannot use "you don't know so therefor lets fill in the gap with my myth".

They cant assume a who, and a who is not required, no matter what.

Time and space did not exist. Ok, lets go with that. Still no need in that case to insert a who as a cause. THAT is all I was arguing.

In reality though, there are competing theories about the universe always existing(a product of an ongoing process as an ebb and flow) or (this is the only universe that ever was and it came from nothing)

My argument is in NEITHER case is a cognition needed to explain either. An infinite universe or finite universe does not need cognition in either case.

I happen to lean to something, even if it is at the quantum level of "twitching out of nothing" as being the product of a prior dead universe. Kind of like how a leaf rots and becomes smaller parts and becomes fuel for the grass to grow.

It could be this is the only universe and will be, or it could be that when this universe dies it will become smaller parts on a quantum level and then another quantum twitch will manifest into a new singularity  and another big bang. We simply don't know.

But what we CAN rule out is the absurdity that anything, be it a volcano, or lightening, are caused by invisible thinking entities. We can rule out invisible brains with magical super powers. Those are merely the inventions of human imagination.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I was talking to Lee,

I was talking to Lee, Brian.  I was always talking to Lee. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:I was talking

Watcher wrote:

I was talking to Lee, Brian.  I was always talking to Lee. 

Ok, sorry, but I did feel the need to point out that we really dont know what existed before that singularity so we cant say time and space not existing was stagnant prior.

Quantum physics and quantum mechanics, and not some book of myth written 2,000 years ago, will help us get more answers.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
It is conceivable that there

It is conceivable that there are a multitude of Universes and ours is only one of many like the froth on top of a boiling pot of water.

If that is true then something that happened in one of the other universes could have caused the Big Bang.

However, that is idle speculation.  Akin to sitting around a camp fire telling ghost stories.

I doubt we could ever prove it and I don't see any sense in just making up half-way plausible stories out of thin air.

For all we know we are in the only universe.  And since we are forever contained within this Universe with no reason to truly believe in the existence any others I'd prefer to stick with what we know.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:It is

Watcher wrote:

It is conceivable that there are a multitude of Universes and ours is only one of many like the froth on top of a boiling pot of water.

If that is true then something that happened in one of the other universes could have caused the Big Bang.

However, that is idle speculation.  Akin to sitting around a camp fire telling ghost stories.

I doubt we could ever prove it and I don't see any sense in just making up half-way plausible stories out of thin air.

For all we know we are in the only universe.  And since we are forever contained within this Universe with no reason to truly believe in the existence any others I'd prefer to stick with what we know.

No, it is not idle speculation. Ethical scientists want competing theories and that is where everyone gets to learn either way.  If your scientific theory gets debunked you have the advantage of discarding bad data. If you get confirmed you have the advantage of being confirmed.

Brainstorming in science is not like brainstorming in myth making, don't equate the two.

"this could be" in science is based on something, and as long as the person who is saying "this could be" is basing it on the best data they have, and is also willing to give it up if it turns out to be wrong, then that is ok.

Scientists who created microwave communications speculated at the prospect of shrinking it down to hand sized. At that time they had no clue if that size could be possible. That speculation drove them to try, and that was not based on simply pulling it out of their ass.  They did have microwave communication at the time so they did have something to work with. Then people after them built upon that, and then the next generation built upon that, and the next and now we do have hand held microwave communication devices we call cell phones.

But if you go to the patent office you also see tons of bad ideas that never get anywhere and will never be a reality.

So the key isn't scientists speculating. The key is that they base it on something and base it on data and the willingness to go where the evidence leads, not where they want it to go.

Speculation in the context of science is OK with the strict rigor of having the ethic to give up on bad data and the willingness to go where the evidence leads and not where you want it to go.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Theorizing about things that

Theorizing about things that exist outside of our Universe is fine for forming a hypothesis.

And I'm sure that maybe a mathematical construct can be made supporting that hypothesis.

Now test it.

You can't.  If the hypothesis can not be tested it is useless.

Idle speculation.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Watcher

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Of course.   However, there was nothing before the very first second of it's beginning because there was no TIME before the first second of the Universe.  Nor was there space.

Ok, you agree with me the universe had a beginning. What caused the universe to begin? If there were nothing before the universe existed we would still have nothing. From nothing, nothing comes.

Lets flip that.

If everything has a beginning then what caused God and what caused that and what caused that and what caused that.

IT'S CALLED THE PROBLEM OF INFINITE REGRESS. Assuming a god creates more problems than it solves. Because if god is infinitely more complex than we are and the universe is, then what caused that god would have to be infinitely even more complex than the god it started. THAT IS if you want to argue that everything has a beginning.

However infinite and finite in the scientific sense without starting from complexity solves that problem.

You stupidly assume complexity and cognition are required as a starting point when everything in the universe has been shown to go from simple to complex not the other way around.

A GOD IS NOT REQUIRED to explain the universe PERIOD! Otherwise it would be equally valid to claim that Thor is the cause of the universe, or Allah or invisible pink unicorns.

You have NOTHING, no argument, get over it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37