There you go again, confusing the issue with facts.

I try to make a habit of that whenever I can.

I noticed our “freind” here is just trotting out that same old long discredited arguements. I wonder when he’s going to come up with something original?

I’m betting he won’t come up with anything original. So far his arguments have consisted of straw men and ignorance of science and history. I see no reason to think he’ll suddenly open his mind and start thinking for himself.

It’s the certainty that’s keeps most of them locked in, no? He just has to learn to be comfortable not always having “the” ultimate answer to life’s current unknowns.

So far his arguments have consisted of straw men and ignorance of science and history.

Don’t forget the misquoting out of context cherry picked portions of the “experts” and what they have to say on cosmology.

sobpatrick - 03 November 2012 05:45 AM

Write4U - 03 November 2012 12:37 AM

sobpatrick - 02 November 2012 11:04 PM

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 02 November 2012 07:33 PM

This isn’t necessarily bad - it will just change the way we look at science and maybe take some of the arrogance out of some atheists

Funny how this one gets trotted out when the most breathtaking arrogance I see is NOT among scientists (Who are not afraid to say ” I don’t know, so let’s find out!) but among theists. (Who say We have The One Right Answer given by direct revelation from God, that’s all the answer anybody needs, and oh by the way, we are The Elect.)

Dude - the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant?  I’m a sceptical believer not a theist

That is a contradiction in terms. A believer is by definition not sceptical. OTOH to say “I am a sceptical non-believer” is correct.

Interesting how things are defined.  A person arrives at a conclusion by being sceptical of the evidence and forms an opinion on that.  Whether that evidence leads to belief or non-belief.  I am sceptical of both science and religion.  For me the greater evidence continues to support a creator. I don’t deny science - unless the answers are crazy and the evidence is questionable - just as I would deny religious craziness.  I deny both stories of creation - the science one of a billion times all the matter within in the universe condensed into an electron sized particle and then anti-matter destroying 99.9999999 of it in a trillionth of a second by nothing for no reason- and a higher being having the ability to go beyond our cerebral limitations and manipulate our reality are both crazy.  Sceptism tells me the higher being one is more plausable - primarily do to the fact that we can do the same to lower beings (plus I see the universe as being very complex and specific).  How is that not a sceptical believer?

Ok. I’ll be more than generous and take you at your word. You say you do not believe in science and you do not believe in religion, but you are convinced that you are right that a god exists. So you are a theist without a clue as to why.

Tell me, what is going to happen we die?  As an atheist what awaits me in the afterlife? As a skeptical theist, what awaits you in the afterlife?

I’m giving you the opportunity to make your case for both of us.

OK, go!

sobpatrick - 30 October 2012 09:35 AM

DarronS - 30 October 2012 05:23 AM

Ah yes, the usual theist screed. “Science is too hard and makes my brain hurt, therefore God.”

No not at all - I want to learn - I have an obsession with sceince and a thirst for knowledge - There are hundreds of Phds in cosmology and physics that dumb this stuff down for me.  It’s all available online. And if i get a little smarter I can cross reference the stuff with all the info that’s available on the net (and everything is available on the net).  I see myself as a true sceptic that looks at the evidence from all sides with no bias - if I’m wrong - educate me and I’ll cross reference your suggestion with other experts in the field.  I would love to hear that science isn’t as crazy as it sounds - I don’t want particles and the entire universe popping into and out of existence, but this is what science is telling me and it’s unacceptable - no one in their right mind should accept it.  All the evidence I have found overwhelmingly points to a designer - I would love to be wrong because I feel I have lost my faith due to overwhelming evidence and need for a creator - faith was more fulfilling

LL.  Your prayers have been answered.  You are wrong.  Now go home and learn some science and critical thinking.  Losing your faith is a gift from the real world.  Don’t denigrate it.

DarronS - 03 November 2012 02:07 PM

sobpatrick - 03 November 2012 01:31 PM

Atheism not arrogant? Are you serious? - every page in every forum looks down at believers - the assumption that atheist know better is almost in every line.  You’re kidding right?
I’m not saying I understand the science I call crazy - I’m saying the specialists I sight understand it - and anyone can understand a time-line provided by them.  I’m sure I can sight the cosmologist it you like

Every page in every forum? Please look at this page and show me where an atheist is being arrogant.

,
the one above “I’m fascinated by your lack of understanding”.  Apparently this guy thinks I don’t have access to the same information everyone else does.  My understanding is different from his but he’s too arrogant to take that into consideration

Lois - 04 November 2012 04:54 AM

sobpatrick - 30 October 2012 09:35 AM

DarronS - 30 October 2012 05:23 AM

Ah yes, the usual theist screed. “Science is too hard and makes my brain hurt, therefore God.”

No not at all - I want to learn - I have an obsession with sceince and a thirst for knowledge - There are hundreds of Phds in cosmology and physics that dumb this stuff down for me.  It’s all available online. And if i get a little smarter I can cross reference the stuff with all the info that’s available on the net (and everything is available on the net).  I see myself as a true sceptic that looks at the evidence from all sides with no bias - if I’m wrong - educate me and I’ll cross reference your suggestion with other experts in the field.  I would love to hear that science isn’t as crazy as it sounds - I don’t want particles and the entire universe popping into and out of existence, but this is what science is telling me and it’s unacceptable - no one in their right mind should accept it.  All the evidence I have found overwhelmingly points to a designer - I would love to be wrong because I feel I have lost my faith due to overwhelming evidence and need for a creator - faith was more fulfilling

LL.  Your prayers have been answered.  You are wrong.  Now go home and learn some science and critical thinking.  Losing your faith is a gift from the real world.  Don’t denigrate it.

I’d be interested in seeing where you think I’m wrong -  more interested in seeing if you could offer a corrected explaination

Now that we are off page six, here is some arrogance for you. Your writing skills are abysmal. The word you wanted was “cite” not “sight.” You often use incomplete sentences, and much of what you write makes no sense. Poor writing often indicates poor thinking, and you have consistently demonstrated poor thinking skills, starting with your original post.

My understanding is different from his but he’s too arrogant to take that into consideration

Stating facts is not arrogance. You do not understand atheism at all. You are making the classic mistake of not being able to see the world from someone else’s viewpoint. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god.

Is Atheism doomed to extinction?

Though it may be a fact that it is the fastest growing religion (referred to in the media - I would call it a belief system)...

Atheism is neither religion nor a belief system.

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?

You are assuming evolution will always lead to constantly higher intelligence. If you look at what we humans are doing to the planet intelligence at our level may be an evolutionary dead end. And there is not such thing as evolving higher. Species evolve to fill an ecological niche.

Worst of all is the whole Planck level concept.  Science has put a limit on the micro.  Like saying you can’t sail past the horizon or you’ll fall off the earth.  This flies in the face of everything sceince supposedly stands for.

No, it doesn’t. The Planck limit is well established and works. Science has not put a limit on anything. Scientists are merely observing the universe and working with what they find.

And I’ll keep it to a simple example - for the our universe to work inflation needs to be exact to a quintillionth of a point.

Fixed that one for you.

My gut tells me something is guiding it.  Why is that difficult to accept?

That is difficult to accept because gut feelings are not evidence.

But when you do look deeper into evolution you find some paradoxes.  One being each link in the evolutionary chain has its own universe.  And all are projections of our human consciousness.

Wow. Each link in the evolutionary chain has its own universe? And they are merely projections of our consciousness? You are talking nonsense here.

I could go on, but anyone reading this thread with an open mind should see the problems in your thinking. And the physicist your keep referring to as “Hawkings” is named “Hawking.”

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 03 November 2012 10:23 PM

So far his arguments have consisted of straw men and ignorance of science and history.

Don’t forget the misquoting out of context cherry picked portions of the “experts” and what they have to say on cosmology.

so far all you guys are coming up with “strawman/cherry picking/ misquoting” accusations but no evidence to the contrary - sorry DarronS you did come up with a name Victor -Stenger - haven’t looked him up yet

DarronS - 04 November 2012 07:21 AM

Now that we are off page six, here is some arrogance for you. Your writing skills are abysmal. The word you wanted was “cite” not “sight.” You often use incomplete sentences, and much of what you write makes no sense. Poor writing often indicates poor thinking, and you have consistently demonstrated poor thinking skills, starting with your original post.

My understanding is different from his but he’s too arrogant to take that into consideration

Stating facts is not arrogance. You do not understand atheism at all. You are making the classic mistake of not being able to see the world from someone else’s viewpoint. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god.

Is Atheism doomed to extinction?

Though it may be a fact that it is the fastest growing religion (referred to in the media - I would call it a belief system)...

Atheism is neither religion nor a belief system.

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?

You are assuming evolution will always lead to constantly higher intelligence. If you look at what we humans are doing to the planet intelligence at our level may be an evolutionary dead end. And there is not such thing as evolving higher. Species evolve to fill an ecological niche.

Worst of all is the whole Planck level concept.  Science has put a limit on the micro.  Like saying you can’t sail past the horizon or you’ll fall off the earth.  This flies in the face of everything sceince supposedly stands for.

No, it doesn’t. The Planck limit is well established and works. Science has not put a limit on anything. Scientists are merely observing the universe and working with what they find.

And I’ll keep it to a simple example - for the our universe to work inflation needs to be exact to a quintillionth of a point.

Fixed that one for you.

My gut tells me something is guiding it.  Why is that difficult to accept?

That is difficult to accept because gut feelings are not evidence.

But when you do look deeper into evolution you find some paradoxes.  One being each link in the evolutionary chain has its own universe.  And all are projections of our human consciousness.

Wow. Each link in the evolutionary chain has its own universe? And they are merely projections of our consciousness? You are talking nonsense here.

I could go on, but anyone reading this thread with an open mind should see the problems in your thinking. And the physicist your keep referring to as “Hawkings” is named “Hawking.”

good point about the grammer and spelling - though I would argue that correct spelling/grammer is playing a lesser role in the era of texting and ultrafast communications - perhaps I’m ahead of the curve? (you seem to be getting the points more often than not regardless of the errors.)  Bottom line - no one has refuted my claims of atheism being doomed to extinction.  No one has denied that religious families are having more children and no one has claimed that science is falling more into the realm of speculation.  Susskind (I know I’m using him a lot - saves time) offers an unprovable explaination to the fine tuning/dark energy issue.  There is no evidence of multiverses.  Why would the greatest minds be proposing this?  This is the realm of religion. No proof no evidence - just a belief.  How is this different from a belief in a higher power?  Save us both some time and put a cork in the strawman/cherry responses.

“There is no evidence of multiverses. 
Why would the greatest minds be proposing this? ”

I saw one or two TV on String Theory.
There they mention what you write about.

AFAIK it is math and not pure speculation.

If they do the math then one explanation of the math
get solved if one interpret it as creating new universities.

So it is not just any wild idea. The math is there
and typical of humans we want to know what the math means.

So it is one of the better??? suggestion.
To introduce God into the equations seems to just make it worse.

But sure if your a master on math why not give God a chance

FredW - 04 November 2012 08:27 AM

“There is no evidence of multiverses. 
Why would the greatest minds be proposing this? ”

I saw one or two TV on String Theory.
There they mention what you write about.

AFAIK it is math and not pure speculation.

If they do the math then one explanation of the math
get solved if one interpret it as creating new universities.

So it is not just any wild idea. The math is there
and typical of humans we want to know what the math means.

So it is one of the better??? suggestion.
To introduce God into the equations seems to just make it worse.

But sure if your a master on math why not give God a chance

I admit the whole “too complicated for me to understand math” is a fact.  I don’t understand it.  But it does prove my point - atheism is in trouble.  If the math is too complicated and results in wild conclusions, people like me are just going to draw parallels with crazy religious stories.  Added to this is the fact that every other week science comes up with something new. I like this, but how will this help people accept sceince if the wild math proven conclusions seem to change so frequently?

Really, sobpatrick? Is the germ theory also in trouble since you don’t understand immunology and microbiology? Your arguments sound like those of a five-year-old kid.

At the edge of any frontier, there is speculation about what may lie just beyond our sight.  Such speculation may often turn out to be as wild and crazy as it seems, and sometimes it turns out to be correct.  Would you rather give up on speculation that can lead to discovery? Or perhaps just dumb down the speculation, or just accept that we shouldn’t go there. lest we surely fall off the edge of the world?