From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: TzarChasm

Much in the same way scientist are forced to shy away from the word "created," they know, the creationist will run all over left field with that cherry.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Given the moment someone posts a physics related subject either Eisenstein or Hawking's gets labeled with all sorts of "statements" it would not matter who made the joke, just that they know a physicists name. I dare them to name a chemist

Sense of humor with research is important, because it can be a soul destroying lifestyle

a reply to: flyingfish

You wear two? I mean wow, there is parochialism, and then there is taking it too far

a reply to: flyingfish

Depends on the science. I can write "a bond was created during the Suzuki coupling" just fine, and the creationists are out of luck.

a reply to: SLAYER69

The estimated date for being able to artificially prolonging life via electronic means is 2044. I would imagine no hormones or and endochrine system so... would we care?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

Given the moment someone posts a physics related subject either Eisenstein or Hawking's gets labeled with all sorts of "statements" it would not matter who made the joke, just that they know a physicists name. I dare them to name a chemist

Sense of humor with research is important, because it can be a soul destroying lifestyle

living is a soul destroying lifestyle.

...meh heh. ಠ_ರೃ

originally posted by: chr0naut
I asked the question: How is "I don't know, therefore: NOT God" any less an argument from ignorance' compared with the statement "I dont know therefore God".

A more appropriate response, on your part, might have been to answer the question.

I asked you how that question is relevant, since nobody makes an argument like that. I clearly defined the position, if you continue to pigeonhole and generalize atheism based on strawmans, then feel free, I will just be no part of that.

The atheist argument is not, as you stated; "There is no evidence for god, therefore no reason to believe in the existence of god. However, I could be convinced if evidence were to be discovered", that is clearly the agnostic argument. Also, surely it is redundant to suggest that someone is an Atheist based solely upon agnostic argument. A simpler and clearer definition is to simply call such belief, Agnostic.

That's why I said they are actually technically agnostic atheists. They reject the believe in god, until evidence is discovered. By default they lack the belief, so atheism still applies.

"There is no god" does not equal "There might be a god but I don't know".

But most atheists don't say "There is no god". They say, they "I DO NOT BELIEVE that god exists". There's a difference. This was already explained in the posts you didn't reply to. Atheists reject gods/deities. That's it. Technically YOU are an atheist if you don't believe in all gods. If you reject a single one then you are atheistic toward that belief. I asked before, Do you reject Zeus? Or do you feel that it is just as logical that he exists? If you reject Zeus, you reject gods/deities, therefor are atheist. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I never sought to hide anything about any rational deficiencies inherent in the philosophical and mathematical "proofs" of Theism. I merely showed that those same rational deficiencies equally plague the antithesis, Atheism.

And I already showed exactly why you deficiencies were unfounded. You don't understand that atheism is reject of belief, not a belief in itself. That's like saying that lack of belief in fairies is a belief. It's not. But, yeah feel free to tell agnostics / atheists what they believe, and continue to use straw mans rather than listening to an atheist / agnostic himself, because you clearly know more about their beliefs than they do, right? No offense, but that's as ridiculous as asking an atheist to define a Christian. I get that you want atheism to be wrong, and you don't like it, but attacking that position does not make yours stronger, and yours still lacks evidence.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Did I state that? No I stated that arguments over religion has caused death. Can you disprove that?

You stated "Getting humanity to agree on what the divine is... sort of has killed a lot of humanity thus far". I am not disagreeing with that.

Specific argument over religion has been devastating in terms of casualties.

Take for instance the Stalinist deprivations (estimated casualties @ 20 million) and Chinese 'Cultural Revolution' (estimated casualties 40 million), both perpetrated by Atheist regimes against their majority religious populations.

Atheism has a lot of blood on its hands, does it not?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MamaJ

I NEVER said Hawking gave Higgs Boson the name God Particle. Leon Lederman gave it that name in a book. I get it... I just stated Hawkings wasn't a fan and called it that.

it was started as a joke, "god particle" being short for "the goddamned particle" on account of it being so difficult to pin down. naturally, people started slinging stigmas around and romanticizing it. equally naturally, most of these people dont have the slightest about what the particle actually means or does.

s

Don't you think if I know who created the term and how he created it in a book years ago I know it started out as a joke? I mean get real. Do you people read the comments or just knee jerk?

Carry on

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Did I state that? No I stated that arguments over religion has caused death. Can you disprove that?

You stated "Getting humanity to agree on what the divine is... sort of has killed a lot of humanity thus far". I am not disagreeing with that.

Specific argument over religion has been devastating in terms of casualties.

Take for instance the Stalinist deprivations (estimated casualties @ 20 million) and Chinese 'Cultural Revolution' (estimated casualties 40 million), both perpetrated by Atheist regimes against their majority religious populations.

Atheism has a lot of blood on its hands, does it not?

humanity as a whole has a lot of blood on its hands. so the solution is clear: all humans are bad and should be exterminated regardless of nation, religion or wealth.

...oh thor, skynet was right.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It depends on how you live your life But with research, you can be beat to a publication after years of work, or the research will not follow your carefully laid plans. OR worst of all .... some religious nut will tell you its "playing god" to look at sub atomic particles

originally posted by: MamaJ

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MamaJ

I NEVER said Hawking gave Higgs Boson the name God Particle. Leon Lederman gave it that name in a book. I get it... I just stated Hawkings wasn't a fan and called it that.

it was started as a joke, "god particle" being short for "the goddamned particle" on account of it being so difficult to pin down. naturally, people started slinging stigmas around and romanticizing it. equally naturally, most of these people dont have the slightest about what the particle actually means or does.

s

Don't you think if I know who created the term and how he created it in a book years ago I know it started out as a joke? I mean get real. Do you people read the comments or just knee jerk?

Carry on

you seem to have taken my post personally. you really shouldnt have, but its not my problem.

a reply to: chr0naut

Can you disprove my statement? Deaths in large numbers have been caused because of religion.

Oh and look at the fallacy of "communists caused all this death, look at the bat atheists". Yep that is not going to fly spud.

a reply to: chr0naut

Atheism has a lot of blood on its hands, does it not?

Ya.. But they didn't kill in the name of atheism.

a reply to: flyingfish

Shhhhh don't spoil that good lie Now he's going to have to ignore you.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: flyingfish

Shhhhh don't spoil that good lie

Now he's going to have to ignore you.

...he does do that a lot.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Reality is such a hard thing these days

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: flyingfish

Shhhhh don't spoil that good lie

Now he's going to have to ignore you.

That's fine by me.. he probably thinks I'm evil anyway.
I'm sweet as pie as most of you know

a reply to: flyingfish

If you are evil, then I as a pagan must be satanic

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps taking one of your eye patches off will let you see as well

What I do see is you trying very hard to be considered "right" so your little dogma is seen as correct.

But aye be doubly a pirate, arr...

Aye need me patches!