Steve Harvey On Athiests
Options
Comments
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »
No ? . Thats a fugazi ass syllogism. Simply asking for proof is not what takes place... ? like you just posted is that ? ass game playing ? Im talking about. ? man up and get some substance behind your position instead of ? ass word games. Cause truth be told you atheist ? ALLWAYS change the subject and run from two questions : 1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?BlackxChild wrote: »Remember everyone asking for proof is disrespectful.... if your going to jail for life based off a crime you didnt commit and you ask for proof... that ? iw disrespectful.
1) Science.
2) There is none yet. But one day there could be thanks to #1. There are none after millenniums of religion so we likely can not do much worse.
1) Science exists and religion in no way inhibits it. The ills I mentioned still exist too. So what has science solved?
2) EXACTLY my ? . That "yet" you tacked on along with the rest of that fallacious ? finger food means less than the hair on a quarks ass.
NEXXXXXXXXXXXT........... -
? coming up with fancy ways of saying "I dont know ? in the absolute but i know absolutely ? dont exist....maybe" lol... ? sweet tart ass, cherry berry ? string flossers
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
I and I frowns on your shenanigans ? .....
http://youtu.be/rbb192bVGAU
I enjoy his music but I don't believe in his ? . What's your point?
My point is this....
it's simple.... If brother Malcolm, Ali, or Perry saw you using their image to spit that stupid ? ...
They would slap the ? outta your monkey ass.......
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
I and I frowns on your shenanigans ? .....http://youtu.be/rbb192bVGAU
I enjoy his music but I don't believe in his ? . What's your point?
My point is this....
it's simple.... If brother Malcolm, Ali, or Perry saw you using their image to spit that stupid ? ...
They would slap the ? outta your monkey ass.......
okay, cool. Thanks for your input
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »
No ? . Thats a fugazi ass syllogism. Simply asking for proof is not what takes place... ? like you just posted is that ? ass game playing ? Im talking about. ? man up and get some substance behind your position instead of ? ass word games. Cause truth be told you atheist ? ALLWAYS change the subject and run from two questions : 1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?BlackxChild wrote: »Remember everyone asking for proof is disrespectful.... if your going to jail for life based off a crime you didnt commit and you ask for proof... that ? iw disrespectful.
1) Science.
2) There is none yet. But one day there could be thanks to #1. There are none after millenniums of religion so we likely can not do much worse.
1) Science exists and religion in no way inhibits it. The ills I mentioned still exist too. So what has science solved?
2) EXACTLY my ? . That "yet" you tacked on along with the rest of that fallacious ? finger food means less than the hair on a quarks ass.
NEXXXXXXXXXXXT...........
Point out which fallacy I committed - because I see none. Religion has stood in the way of science many times for centuries. Religious peoples have sentenced the scientifically enlightened to death countless times. Those with the thirst for real knowledge and a passion to do what is necessary to find it have had to do so in private due to the religious bigots around them not wanting anything to do with it. Word to Galileo nearly getting killed for publicly stating that Earth moves around the Sun.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?
1. Atheism places man in the seat of responsibility for fellow man and man's environment. The atheist does not leave his or her problems to an imaginary being; the atheist uses logic, reason and generally his mind to find solutions to problems that he faces.
2. Life did not begin by accident.
1) You didnt describe a practical solution. You just talked more ? about religion and said the atheists uses logic and ? . Where are the actual solutions, slickster? And how are they DEMONSTRATED? PROOF PLEASE
2) Opposite of accidental is on purpose. Purpose requires some form of intelligence.
1. Humanism, and like someone else said, science. To answer your question about science, science has done more for humanity than religion or your spirituality. The history and success of science is there to prove that.
2. Not necessarily. What I mean by "accident" is no cause at all. There is always a cause and we have already went over this. Other than that, there is no other "accident" or "purpose" in nature, as nature has no intelligence behind it.
-
further demonstrating the intrinsic reprobate ? in every atheist.... still yapping and clutching at straws even tho its apparent your skirt got lifted and everybody has already seen your ? quivering... you can keep going tho. This is entertainment to me.... edutainment rather.
LOL @ you thinking you pulling cards and lifting skirts. You're a clown and you've been on the losing end of every debate we've had on here within the last few days. I've noticed when I got you cornered, you sidestep or ignore my posts and continue talking that ? . You should be taking notes, ?
-
LOL.....
Well why yall ? keep running from thread to thread with the same ? ????
Get ethered....move on to the next thread until you get your ass ethered again.......
? pathetic...... -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?
1. Atheism places man in the seat of responsibility for fellow man and man's environment. The atheist does not leave his or her problems to an imaginary being; the atheist uses logic, reason and generally his mind to find solutions to problems that he faces.
2. Life did not begin by accident.
1) You didnt describe a practical solution. You just talked more ? about religion and said the atheists uses logic and ? . Where are the actual solutions, slickster? And how are they DEMONSTRATED? PROOF PLEASE
2) Opposite of accidental is on purpose. Purpose requires some form of intelligence.
1. Humanism, and like someone else said, science. To answer your question about science, science has done more for humanity than religion or your spirituality. The history and success of science is there to prove that.
2. Not necessarily. What I mean by "accident" is no cause at all. There is always a cause and we have already went over this. Other than that, there is no other "accident" or "purpose" in nature, as nature has no intelligence behind it.
1) ? . Again, maybe youre not understanding my question. Im asking for specifics. Among so many "successes", Im puzzled as to why you cant point out specifically what problems science has solved. Energy crisis? Pollution? Crime? The common ? cold? AIDS? Cancer? The impending shortage of clean water? Point out the practical solutions PRECISELY.
2) More ? . We didnt go over ? . You talked in circles and I let you slide, dun dun dun. The definition of YHWH is "self-existent one" meaning there is no need for a cause for something that does not BEGIN to exist. Existence itself does not need a cause. Saying nature has no intelligence behind it is about one of the most unintelligent things Ive seen you write. ? are we not a part of nature? ? .
Still no REAL, CONCISE ANSWERS. MORE SEMANTICS AND CIRCULAR REASONING..... -
RodrigueZz wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »
No ? . Thats a fugazi ass syllogism. Simply asking for proof is not what takes place... ? like you just posted is that ? ass game playing ? Im talking about. ? man up and get some substance behind your position instead of ? ass word games. Cause truth be told you atheist ? ALLWAYS change the subject and run from two questions : 1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?BlackxChild wrote: »Remember everyone asking for proof is disrespectful.... if your going to jail for life based off a crime you didnt commit and you ask for proof... that ? iw disrespectful.
1) Science.
2) There is none yet. But one day there could be thanks to #1. There are none after millenniums of religion so we likely can not do much worse.
1) Science exists and religion in no way inhibits it. The ills I mentioned still exist too. So what has science solved?
2) EXACTLY my ? . That "yet" you tacked on along with the rest of that fallacious ? finger food means less than the hair on a quarks ass.
NEXXXXXXXXXXXT...........
Point out which fallacy I committed - because I see none. Religion has stood in the way of science many times for centuries. Religious peoples have sentenced the scientifically enlightened to death countless times. Those with the thirst for real knowledge and a passion to do what is necessary to find it have had to do so in private due to the religious bigots around them not wanting anything to do with it. Word to Galileo nearly getting killed for publicly stating that Earth moves around the Sun.
All that ? you said = european history. the world dont revolve around european history ? . and the fallacy you commited was assigning science as some sort of atheist possession. shut that simple ass ? up and talk like a man, boy. -
RodrigueZz wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »
No ? . Thats a fugazi ass syllogism. Simply asking for proof is not what takes place... ? like you just posted is that ? ass game playing ? Im talking about. ? man up and get some substance behind your position instead of ? ass word games. Cause truth be told you atheist ? ALLWAYS change the subject and run from two questions : 1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?BlackxChild wrote: »Remember everyone asking for proof is disrespectful.... if your going to jail for life based off a crime you didnt commit and you ask for proof... that ? iw disrespectful.
1) Science.
2) There is none yet. But one day there could be thanks to #1. There are none after millenniums of religion so we likely can not do much worse.
1) Science exists and religion in no way inhibits it. The ills I mentioned still exist too. So what has science solved?
2) EXACTLY my ? . That "yet" you tacked on along with the rest of that fallacious ? finger food means less than the hair on a quarks ass.
NEXXXXXXXXXXXT...........
Point out which fallacy I committed - because I see none. Religion has stood in the way of science many times for centuries. Religious peoples have sentenced the scientifically enlightened to death countless times. Those with the thirst for real knowledge and a passion to do what is necessary to find it have had to do so in private due to the religious bigots around them not wanting anything to do with it. Word to Galileo nearly getting killed for publicly stating that Earth moves around the Sun.
All that ? you said = european history. the world dont revolve around european history ? . and the fallacy you commited was assigning science as some sort of atheist possession. shut that simple ass ? up and talk like a man, boy.
Ad Hominem fallacy committed. ^
I in no way stated athiests own science - just that it is what athiests look to for answers instead of unreliable religious texts.
You can split hairs all you want but you claimed that religion in no way inhibits science and I gave evidence as to ways in which it has. So your previous statement is inherently wrong. You can retract and reformat your statement now to hide behind the guise of non-Abrahamic religions but i doubt that can really shield you from criticism. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?
1. Atheism places man in the seat of responsibility for fellow man and man's environment. The atheist does not leave his or her problems to an imaginary being; the atheist uses logic, reason and generally his mind to find solutions to problems that he faces.
2. Life did not begin by accident.
1) You didnt describe a practical solution. You just talked more ? about religion and said the atheists uses logic and ? . Where are the actual solutions, slickster? And how are they DEMONSTRATED? PROOF PLEASE
2) Opposite of accidental is on purpose. Purpose requires some form of intelligence.
1. Humanism, and like someone else said, science. To answer your question about science, science has done more for humanity than religion or your spirituality. The history and success of science is there to prove that.
2. Not necessarily. What I mean by "accident" is no cause at all. There is always a cause and we have already went over this. Other than that, there is no other "accident" or "purpose" in nature, as nature has no intelligence behind it.
1) ? . Again, maybe youre not understanding my question. Im asking for specifics. Among so many "successes", Im puzzled as to why you cant point out specifically what problems science has solved. Energy crisis? Pollution? Crime? The common ? cold? AIDS? Cancer? The impending shortage of clean water? Point out the practical solutions PRECISELY.
2) More ? . We didnt go over ? . You talked in circles and I let you slide, dun dun dun. The definition of YHWH is "self-existent one" meaning there is no need for a cause for something that does not BEGIN to exist. Existence itself does not need a cause. Saying nature has no intelligence behind it is about one of the most unintelligent things Ive seen you write. ? are we not a part of nature? ? .
Still no REAL, CONCISE ANSWERS. MORE SEMANTICS AND CIRCULAR REASONING.....
There are vaccines to prevent things like the common cold, flu and other things. Science has provided us the knowledge to understand that such diseases are caused not by microorganisms but by viruses. Anyone with a basic knowledge of viruses knows that they can not be removed or cured from the body once inside. They are permanent. Prevention is where investment and effort should go in such an instance. Let it be known that science has contributed far more to medical science than religion ever has.
If you really want to get into the topic of "What has science fixed" let us first look at the mess religion has made. It is ridiculous for one to live 50 years as a ? , then sober up for seven days and expect that single week to be enough to fix the ills caused by the previous stupidity. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »further demonstrating the intrinsic reprobate ? in every atheist.... still yapping and clutching at straws even tho its apparent your skirt got lifted and everybody has already seen your ? quivering... you can keep going tho. This is entertainment to me.... edutainment rather.
LOL @ you thinking you pulling cards and lifting skirts. You're a clown and you've been on the losing end of every debate we've had on here within the last few days. I've noticed when I got you cornered, you sidestep or ignore my posts and continue talking that ? . You should be taking notes, ?
LOL. ? please. Youve conveniently ignored or played off everytime Ive made tater tots out yo small fry ass. ? can read. They see whats going on here. You in over your head ? with me. You ? only know how to argue against christianity. And everytime you make a point dissing religion, you aint dissing me ? . You dissing yourself. The only thing that sets you apart from these other atheist he-shes on here is that you swagger jack eastern RELIGIONS and slap it on top of some ? you more than likely learned in a freshman philosophy class. Most ? dont read enough to see it but I been done peeped your card... Frankenstein philosophy having ass ? , I wanna believe in something but the geek squad wont accept me built ass ? , you boiled parsnip and corned beef eating white boy ass ? .... smh.
keep entertaining me ? . i need a little more levity tonite....
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »
No ? . Thats a fugazi ass syllogism. Simply asking for proof is not what takes place... ? like you just posted is that ? ass game playing ? Im talking about. ? man up and get some substance behind your position instead of ? ass word games. Cause truth be told you atheist ? ALLWAYS change the subject and run from two questions : 1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?BlackxChild wrote: »Remember everyone asking for proof is disrespectful.... if your going to jail for life based off a crime you didnt commit and you ask for proof... that ? iw disrespectful.
1) Science.
2) There is none yet. But one day there could be thanks to #1. There are none after millenniums of religion so we likely can not do much worse.
1) Science exists and religion in no way inhibits it. The ills I mentioned still exist too. So what has science solved?
2) EXACTLY my ? . That "yet" you tacked on along with the rest of that fallacious ? finger food means less than the hair on a quarks ass.
NEXXXXXXXXXXXT...........
Point out which fallacy I committed - because I see none. Religion has stood in the way of science many times for centuries. Religious peoples have sentenced the scientifically enlightened to death countless times. Those with the thirst for real knowledge and a passion to do what is necessary to find it have had to do so in private due to the religious bigots around them not wanting anything to do with it. Word to Galileo nearly getting killed for publicly stating that Earth moves around the Sun.
All that ? you said = european history. the world dont revolve around european history ? . and the fallacy you commited was assigning science as some sort of atheist possession. shut that simple ass ? up and talk like a man, boy.
Ad Hominem fallacy committed. ^
I in no way stated athiests own science - just that it is what athiests look to for answers instead of unreliable religious texts.
You can split hairs all you want but you claimed that religion in no way inhibits science and I gave evidence as to ways in which it has. So your previous statement is inherently wrong. You can retract and reformat your statement now to hide behind the guise of non-Abrahamic religions but i doubt that can really shield you from criticism.
The question was what solutions does atheism HAVE. Things specific to being an atheist. You dont have to be atheist to use science. I didnt ask you where atheists look for answers..I asked for the answers themselves.
People inhibit other people. Religion and science are inanimate concepts you ? mo-mo. You cant cite that ? beyond european power games. You can try to put me on the defensive all you want but you ? STILL AINT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?
1. Atheism places man in the seat of responsibility for fellow man and man's environment. The atheist does not leave his or her problems to an imaginary being; the atheist uses logic, reason and generally his mind to find solutions to problems that he faces.
2. Life did not begin by accident.
1. Sounds like the PRIDE of life.
2. Intelligent purpose>>>accident. -
RodrigueZz wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?
1. Atheism places man in the seat of responsibility for fellow man and man's environment. The atheist does not leave his or her problems to an imaginary being; the atheist uses logic, reason and generally his mind to find solutions to problems that he faces.
2. Life did not begin by accident.
1) You didnt describe a practical solution. You just talked more ? about religion and said the atheists uses logic and ? . Where are the actual solutions, slickster? And how are they DEMONSTRATED? PROOF PLEASE
2) Opposite of accidental is on purpose. Purpose requires some form of intelligence.
1. Humanism, and like someone else said, science. To answer your question about science, science has done more for humanity than religion or your spirituality. The history and success of science is there to prove that.
2. Not necessarily. What I mean by "accident" is no cause at all. There is always a cause and we have already went over this. Other than that, there is no other "accident" or "purpose" in nature, as nature has no intelligence behind it.
1) ? . Again, maybe youre not understanding my question. Im asking for specifics. Among so many "successes", Im puzzled as to why you cant point out specifically what problems science has solved. Energy crisis? Pollution? Crime? The common ? cold? AIDS? Cancer? The impending shortage of clean water? Point out the practical solutions PRECISELY.
2) More ? . We didnt go over ? . You talked in circles and I let you slide, dun dun dun. The definition of YHWH is "self-existent one" meaning there is no need for a cause for something that does not BEGIN to exist. Existence itself does not need a cause. Saying nature has no intelligence behind it is about one of the most unintelligent things Ive seen you write. ? are we not a part of nature? ? .
Still no REAL, CONCISE ANSWERS. MORE SEMANTICS AND CIRCULAR REASONING.....
There are vaccines to prevent things like the common cold, flu and other things. Science has provided us the knowledge to understand that such diseases are caused not by microorganisms but by viruses. Anyone with a basic knowledge of viruses knows that they can not be removed or cured from the body once inside. They are permanent. Prevention is where investment and effort should go in such an instance. Let it be known that science has contributed far more to medical science than religion ever has.
If you really want to get into the topic of "What has science fixed" let us first look at the mess religion has made. It is ridiculous for one to live 50 years as a ? , then sober up for seven days and expect that single week to be enough to fix the ills caused by the previous stupidity.
Vaccines ? people up more than they help people. There is no ? vaccine to prevent a cold ? lol. "Science has contribute more to medical science.." HUH? ? put the ? pipe down, you starting to tweak. How bout this buddy: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...(Isaiah 40:22) SPHERICAL EARTH [ europeans the ones had it twisted} "He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing (Job 26:7) ( SPACE - NO TELESCOPES) He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man. (Job 36:27-28)"All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again (Eccl 1:7)"Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16). HYDROLOGIC CYCLE “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31) GRAVITATIONAL PROPERTIES OF CONSTELLATIONS “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” ( Lev. 17:11) KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUNCTION OF BLOOD (Numbers 19) RECIPIE FOR DISINFECTANT AND PROCEDURES TO AVOID INFECTION RELATIVE TO THE TECH OF THE ERA...not to mention the RECENT scientific "discoveries" that prove the knowledge behind the dietary laws and circumcision....
...CONT -
YOU SAY: Let it be known that science has contributed far more to medical science than religion ever has.
ACTUAL SCIENTISTS SAY:
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. ? to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it ? who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of ? ." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because ? created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of ? – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [? ]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a ? will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for ? in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how ? did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of ? 's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
YEAH RELIGION HAS ? ? UP TOO. YOU DIDNT READ ? . IM EQUALLY AGAINST MODERN MALFEASANCE IN RELIGION AND SCIENCE. BUT GONE HEAD... TELL ME WHAT RELIGION ? UP SO I CAN ETHER YOU MORE AND SPREAD YOUR ASHES TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE IC.
-
Where you ? ? up is not realizing that I know my ? better than you AND your ? better than you in most instances. You Johhny come lately ? just now even talking this ? because its "popular counter-culture". You new IC ? come around every rip tryna walk ya lil baby nuts around the block and get JUDAHXULU'ED. Yall new ? dont know when to tap out tho.... YOU GONE LEARN TODAY.
-
Damn, Brother Judahxulu just humble the ? out of me....Shalom to brothers Disinclined Insight, Bambu, Melanted Kemist, solid analysis and Judahxulu for the blessings and lessons dropped. I know when to shut my mouth and learn. We got teachers of truth for the next generation. YAH is good.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »1) What practical solutions does the atheist have to cure the social and environmental ills of the day. 2) Where is your irrefutable, absolute proof that life began as an accident?
1. Atheism places man in the seat of responsibility for fellow man and man's environment. The atheist does not leave his or her problems to an imaginary being; the atheist uses logic, reason and generally his mind to find solutions to problems that he faces.
2. Life did not begin by accident.
1) You didnt describe a practical solution. You just talked more ? about religion and said the atheists uses logic and ? . Where are the actual solutions, slickster? And how are they DEMONSTRATED? PROOF PLEASE
2) Opposite of accidental is on purpose. Purpose requires some form of intelligence.
1. Humanism, and like someone else said, science. To answer your question about science, science has done more for humanity than religion or your spirituality. The history and success of science is there to prove that.
2. Not necessarily. What I mean by "accident" is no cause at all. There is always a cause and we have already went over this. Other than that, there is no other "accident" or "purpose" in nature, as nature has no intelligence behind it.
1) ? . Again, maybe youre not understanding my question. Im asking for specifics. Among so many "successes", Im puzzled as to why you cant point out specifically what problems science has solved. Energy crisis? Pollution? Crime? The common ? cold? AIDS? Cancer? The impending shortage of clean water? Point out the practical solutions PRECISELY.
2) More ? . We didnt go over ? . You talked in circles and I let you slide, dun dun dun. The definition of YHWH is "self-existent one" meaning there is no need for a cause for something that does not BEGIN to exist. Existence itself does not need a cause. Saying nature has no intelligence behind it is about one of the most unintelligent things Ive seen you write. ? are we not a part of nature? ? .
Still no REAL, CONCISE ANSWERS. MORE SEMANTICS AND CIRCULAR REASONING.....
1. Well, medical science for one. Go to any hospital in the U.S. and you'll see science in work, solving problems. Science helps people to overcome cancer, overcome the common cold. Before applied science, people died because of the common cold. That's more in that small example than your religion has done. All those things you've named have not been solved by your religion so maybe that's something you need to look at.
2. Like I said, you use cause and effect to criticize atheist views and come to the conclusion that Yhwh exists but at the end of the day, you're forced to abandon cause and effect. IMO saying something does not have a cause is ridiculous, because a transcendent creator above the law of cause and effect could not interact in any way with anything/anyone within that law. If it is non-existent and does not answer to cause and effect, it will remain that way--non-existent. If existence does not need a cause, then you cannot turn around and say the universe was not created without any cause. You say it is crazy to think of the universe popping into existence without a cause but then state that your ? popped into existence without a cause. We're a part of nature but there's no intelligence behind our existence. Meaning, there's no intelligent creator. If it is intelligent, it is a part of nature itself, within the law of cause and effect.
-
I thought it was common sense in this forum not to go at it with Judahxulu? You see how overkill(ether-i-am) doesn't even attempt to go against him and he is atheist as they come. But I'm readying "The Hebrew Tongue Restored", the first few pages should take weeks and weeks of studying and learning and understanding. I appreciate the massive drop of knowledge bestowed upon me. Glory to Yahweh and may Yahweh bless you all.
-
LOL. ? please. Youve conveniently ignored or played off everytime Ive made tater tots out yo small fry ass. ? can read. They see whats going on here. You in over your head ? with me. You ? only know how to argue against christianity. And everytime you make a point dissing religion, you aint dissing me ? . You dissing yourself. The only thing that sets you apart from these other atheist he-shes on here is that you swagger jack eastern RELIGIONS and slap it on top of some ? you more than likely learned in a freshman philosophy class. Most ? dont read enough to see it but I been done peeped your card... Frankenstein philosophy having ass ? , I wanna believe in something but the geek squad wont accept me built ass ? , you boiled parsnip and corned beef eating white boy ass ? .... smh.
keep entertaining me ? . i need a little more levity tonite....
1. I don't diss religion in general; I've dissed your religion. I do not agree with theism and theistic religions so most of my arguments are against theism and theistic religions, not just the Christian religion. Religion and theism are two completely different things. And I do not follow a theistic religion so I don't see how I would be dissing myself when debating against theism.
2. I did not take Philosophy; nothing is "swagger-jacked", I've read books and learned things that have helped me gain a better understanding of the world around me, whether it is EASTERN, WESTERN, or wherever.
3. I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat beef
4. Because you have nothing better to do. What you assume about my life is probably your own.
-
ACTUAL SCIENTISTS SAY: (List of Theist Scientists)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology -
Judha your a dumb ? , alot of atheist grow up in religious households. Judha I know what it's like to be religious.
-
LOL Judah thinks he dropping ether.
"how was the universe made! Need a scientific answer now! No? Then IT MUST BE ? !"
