It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
but the facts are, the people who have asked the right questions have always been spiritual, Isaac Newton believed in God, Aquinas believed in God, Hubble believed in God, Einstein believed in God of order (sound familiar?) Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang theory, Alexander Friedmann who was also a Roman Catholic priest who has whole collage discourses devoted to his works alone...
Ah yes, the good old argument from authority...which scientifically speaking is 100% worthless without backup evidence.
are you going to try to argue Einstein again? still the belief in the God of order is belief in God. I will not even try to prove your ignorance here and lack of a proper education about history to argue the others I have mentioned.
All those people you mentioned stated a BELIEF,
it is actually nothing about their belief actually, it is about what they have done and contributed to science and future generations, for afterall, men or women of science did not begin to associate themselves with the most odious word "atheism" until the 18th century. Even our best questions have came and still come from an integration of both science and spirituality, without this the questions are meaningless.
they didn't do studies on the subject to back up their belief like they did when they came up with their scientific theories. So saying their stated belief is just as valid as the brilliance of their theories is beyond silly
now that has to be the the most logical and interesting response you give there, but where did the matter stars are made of come from? why are they there? of course we know all about supernova and then the reconstitution of this star-stuff into new stars in a seemingly endless cycle, every bit as circular and trapped as your logic.
As for where the elements come from, we know where and how helium and others form...inside stars
what point? the point that you are only here to bash and not discover or talk about anything really of any interest? the point that above all this ignorance causes divide and separation and takes us backward because flawed atheism is only out for an impulsive giggle... the professors of this said belief are rather ignorant of history, the point in which Isaac Newton spoke so eloquently about.
Thanks for proving my point though...the tide comes in, the tide goes out
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
What on earth do american law rules have to do with scientific evidence? That is just insanely WTF! And how the hell can something be true, just because more people believe in it? At some point there were more people believing in fairies and unicorns, than non-believers, that didn't make them become real!
This is really... Just.. WTF... The internet is a weird place.
weak indeed young jedi, the evidence is in history and in the encyclopedia for you to discover for yourself, I wonder how many other names I can come up with from various fields of science ?
are you going to try to argue Einstein again? still the belief in the God of order is belief in God. I will not even try to prove your ignorance here and lack of a proper education about history to argue the others I have mentioned.
it is actually nothing about their belief actually, it is about what they have done and contributed to science and future generations, for afterall, men or women of science did not begin to associate themselves with the most odious word "atheism" until the 18th century. Even our best questions have came and still come from an integration of both science and spirituality, without this the questions are meaningless.
now that has to be the the most logical and interesting response you give there, but where did the matter stars are made of come from? why are they there? of course we know all about supernova and then the reconstitution of this star-stuff into new stars in a seemingly endless cycle, every bit as circular and trapped as your logic.
what point?
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
What on earth do american law rules have to do with scientific evidence? That is just insanely WTF! And how the hell can something be true, just because more people believe in it? At some point there were more people believing in fairies and unicorns, than non-believers, that didn't make them become real!
This is really... Just.. WTF... The internet is a weird place.
oh these are not exclusive to america, these laws of reality come from the Greek and Judeo-Christian philosophies which is actually the cornerstone of your entire western civilization, even that of the very tongue you speak now.
Majority rule and agrees that the sky does happen to be blue... I wonder how we established this "fact" observed by majority ?
what color do you think it is ?
wow atheists surely are lacking in the education department
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Soke33
And again you quote definitions related to LAW...and NOT science!! The definitions aren't the same in law as in science
oh no here we go again, that weak sputtering out light-sabre... I am sorry my friend your moves are so predictable that others can now turn sideways (like Neo) and fed you off with out even looking, it is like we can already see it coming. Besides like Agent Smith... you do not even know why you do the things you do or seek what you seek, you act only on impulse.
In science, witness testimony not backed up by proper evidence is WORTHLESS.
subjective science is called "a theory" Gods "Law" is called "the Law" and that is for a reason.
Subjective evidence is not evidence in science
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
no it means if you go out and murder someone, it is quite "evil" and against the "law" oh dear God for the future of humanity give this, the lesser wisdom understanding !
Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
But you realise that the absence of evidence does not mean the default answer is the correct one. It means we do not yet understand why a particular phenomenon occurs as it does.
on of the greatest things and mysterious things to come out of the religious quest to better understand ourselves has been science. Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?
One of the greatest things about science is that it can admit when it's wrong and change its theories accordingly to accomodate new information and understanding.
hold on here just a second... we are talking about science and spirituality... if you can not understand the difference and follow a conversation then what really do you have to offer ? I will not even quote the rest of your response here because your logic and understanding is flawed at the source. But my personal religion happens to be the sect of Heavy Metal.
Religion on the otherhand, cannot.
I agree... most scientists are not good looking.
Sure, science does not have the answer to everything.
admirable really... maybe they should head to the gym, or show a little heart
But at least it makes an attempt to use common sense, logic and reason to understand the world and universe we live it.
oh I am quite sure you are not, Theism and spirituality is not exclusive to spirituality..
I'm not bashing Christianity specifically - I'm bashing all religions equally.
wow atheists surely are lacking in the education department
"Law" such as the law of thermodynamics and Hubble's "Law" means it has been establish and is ground to stand on when doing further research and study, that is why we call it "a law" for if you go out and harm others that is not abiding by "laws" wouldn't you agree ?
A "theory" on the other hand is just that... a speculation.
oh no here we go again, that weak sputtering out light-sabre... I am sorry my friend your moves are so predictable that others can now turn sideways (like Neo) and fed you off with out even looking, it is like we can already see it coming. Besides like Agent Smith... you do not even know why you do the things you do or seek what you seek, you act only on impulse.
subjective science is called "a theory" Gods "Law" is called "the Law" and that is for a reason.
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?
I agree... most scientists are not good looking.
Sure, science does not have the answer to everything.
admirable really... maybe they should head to the gym, or show a little heart
But at least it makes an attempt to use common sense, logic and reason to understand the world and universe we live it.
Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?
the big bang is only a theory, it is not "law" and is being abandoned because it can not be rationalized, its actually funny to think everything we know of came from a single point in space time so small that we couldn't even see it and spontaneously formed out of the "nothing" haha do you not see it is just how human thought patterns work, it is where they come from... out of the nothing, of course unless one is educated in science, history and spirituality, which give foundation in which to stand on.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by uva3021
Where did the C, N, H, and O come from?
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Is this a serious question? Hydrogen exists because big bang was asymmetric (antimatter and matter didn't cancel out each other completely). The rest comes from stars.
you got it... and the chicken happens to be atheistic physicist
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?
Of course the egg as it's quite old evolutionary invention. Chicken on the other hand is a modern species and in no way ancient.
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
the big bang is only a theory, it is not "law" and is being abandoned because it can not be rationalized
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
Again, nothing of that contradicts the big bang theory, or the multiverse hypothesis.
Interesting link though
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
you got it... and the chicken happens to be atheistic physicist
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?
Of course the egg as it's quite old evolutionary invention. Chicken on the other hand is a modern species and in no way ancient.
not too attractive fellows I might add
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
Again, nothing of that contradicts the big bang theory, or the multiverse hypothesis.
Interesting link though