Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[orogenicman]

Do the research? You're talking to a geologist. What the hell do you think I've been doing since 1984?

You didn't have to. Because that is what they are doing. of course you don't have a problem with it, because you don't have a clue.

Creationists do. They call it creation science. You didn't know this? Huh.

That you for that astute observation, Mr. Obvious.

"God did it" is not scientific, not falsifiable, not testable. Science can never confirm it.

Are you blind? I just did.

OMG. I don't believe you just said that. The world around us was there. And we can read what it says about how it formed. Maybe if you took a class, you too would be able to read it.

Do I know every step? No. I am 99% certain that a gray-haired sky daddy didn't form it out of a magical lump of clay.

Projection. Try again.

I know one so-called wise spiritual man who's followers have rampaged the planet for the last 2,000 years. And humanity has suffered immensely as a result.

Fine, there's creationist science. That's no skin of my sac or yours.

Yea, you use dismissive terms to diminish a deity you don't understand; that doesn't prove anything. And again, you're not the authority on the start of the world that you pretend to be. You simply do not know all that you'd like to think you know.

This is a typical tactic creationists use - claim that I don't understand the religion/deity. I was once a devout Catholic and come from a very large family of devout Catholics, so don't tell me that I don't understand. I never said I was an authority. There are no authorities in the sciences. There are, however, experts, and I am one of them. You know, I've heard creationists say the same thing - we don't know most of the universe (of course, they are referring to dark energy and dark matter which make up the bulk of the universe, and about which we know virtually nothing). And the are right. We don't know much about that stuff. But we know that they exist, and we know this because we made the discovery by applying the scientific method. We did not say "we don't know what's going on there, it must be god". And the rest of the universe, the matter and electromagnetic energy, we know a hell of a lot about. You say that we don't know as much as we think we do. I say that while there is so much more to learn, there is a lot more that we know than you are either aware of or are willing to admit.

Nonsense. You are confusing two issues. One is faith; the other is the workings of a system. That some point to God as the "Ultimate": cause etc is faith. Science is about the nuts and bolts that tie the Universe together. I say the two should NOT be confused, but all you do is confuse them.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

I know many creationists most are very reasonable. Sort of the Muslim thing, you only hear about the radicals.

But that doesn't stop you from lumping everyone into one.

I haven't met a single one that knew what he/she was talking about. And I have talked to many. If you are concerned that I am lumping people together, then have at it. Don't be shy. Tell us what creationism, in your view, is all about and why it should be considered scientifically valid? (this should be entertaining)

Do you mean to sat that you don't even know what Creationism is and you are condemning it as "unscientific"?? The Scientific method work because it is based on refutation. So refute!!!

Greg

No that is not what I asked. He is saying that he disagrees with me about what creationism is. I know what it is, and have argued against it for decades. He apparently believes it is something different so I asked him to tell me what he thinks it is. As for the scientific method, you get an F with your attempt. It is not about refutation. It is about falsification, testing, observation, repetition, verification, and peer review.

noun
1.
an act of refuting a statement, charge, etc.;disproof



You do speak ENGLISH, no?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

Since when has "peer review" had anything to do with it?? Galileo's "peers" reviewed his work and found it lacking. Does that mean that he was wrong?? Of course not!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" I know what it is"

Do you?

""The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). "

Truth cannot contradict truth!!

Greg

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

Hmmm. Science is not about proving or disproving?

Yes, as I said when I posted this: "Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs."

guess that whole conclusion thing in the scientific method is just bunk, then.

Conclusions are not proofs.

Science always seeks to explain things as precisely and as exactly as possible through proper rigors. That's what I like about science. Then, hacks like you come along pretend it's illusive even as you glory how knowledge based it is relative to religion? You're speaking out of both ends of your mouth.

0.999999 is very precise (with six decimal places of precision). But it is still not 1. Most of science is about approximations. And that is because very little of the math is exacting. For instance, the volume of a non-symetrical object can only be approximated. Everybody knows this. So how am I speaking out of both 'sides' of my mouth?

I don't frankly care what the Catholic church did.

I'm not surprised.

Throwing them out there to invalidate religion is a red herring.

Erm, what?

They've been a corrupt organization since their inception. But that doesn't mean that religion is inherently bad. Just like science, whether its good or bad depends on the application thereof. You want to point to corrupt organizations as an endgame. There are very corrupt governments and corporations too. Does that mean we shouldn't believe in government or business? Of course not.

So what you are saying is that they have been corrupt throughout their history, and yet they aren't bad and we should still trust them? If that is your definition of a virtuous institution, have at it. My standards are somewhat higher, I suspect.

It's faulty to compare science and religion as subjects that must oppose each other. The truth is not mutually exclusive. But the Bible was not written as a science manual. Faith was clearly part of God's plan. If he wanted us to have all the answers, he would have given them to us. Faith is the process of building character.

But they are fundamentally opposed for the following reasons:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time. Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independently of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

 

[orogenicman]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New Intelligent Falling Theory The Onion - America s Finest News Source

orogenicman and rdean pretending The Onion is a valid source. But in the second place, I don't care what you show me some religionist knucklehead is doing. My arugment isn't that religions are doing great for us. My contention is that they don't have to be inherently bad or scientifically naive like leftist losers pretend.

Where did I source the Onion? Right. I didn't.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

Honestly, I have no problem if that's precisely how you want to view reality and thereby conduct your action. None whatsoever. But you're crazy if you think that this explains away the value of faith.

 

[orogenicman]

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

Honestly, I have no problem if that's precisely how you want to view reality and thereby conduct your action. None whatsoever. But you're crazy if you think that this explains away the value of faith.

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

Honestly, I have no problem if that's precisely how you want to view reality and thereby conduct your action. None whatsoever. But you're crazy if you think that this explains away the value of faith.

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

 

[orogenicman]

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

Honestly, I have no problem if that's precisely how you want to view reality and thereby conduct your action. None whatsoever. But you're crazy if you think that this explains away the value of faith.

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

Honestly, I have no problem if that's precisely how you want to view reality and thereby conduct your action. None whatsoever. But you're crazy if you think that this explains away the value of faith.

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

 

[orogenicman]

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

Honestly, I have no problem if that's precisely how you want to view reality and thereby conduct your action. None whatsoever. But you're crazy if you think that this explains away the value of faith.

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Honestly, I have no problem if that's precisely how you want to view reality and thereby conduct your action. None whatsoever. But you're crazy if you think that this explains away the value of faith.

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence. Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

 

[gtopa1]

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence. Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

A Scientist...no way!! lmao. Let me guess: he's a food tester at an abattoir!! A guy with a degree sprouting that stuff is a nonsense!! If he was a scientist he'd understand that one does not "believe in" Science!!

Greg

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence. Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

A Scientist...no way!! lmao. Let me guess: he's a food tester at an abattoir!! A guy with a degree sprouting that stuff is a nonsense!! If he was a scientist he'd understand that one does not "believe in" Science!!

Greg

I believe that he's a legit scientist. But like many scientists who let their egoes rule them, he has convinced himself that the so-called absence of proof is in fact proof. It's hackery; and as a scientist he ought to know better.

 

[orogenicman]

What is the value of believing something not in evidence as opposed to finding evidence and then conducting one's actions according to those findings?

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Honestly, you're asking me to preach pretty much. Rather than do that, I'll just say that science hasn't shown that abstract spirituality doesn't exist.

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

 

[HUGGY]

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. And you can't cloak it in science. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

As hard as you try to make that claim it simply isn't true. Atheists don't
run around imagining fairy tales are real. They don't need an imaginary super being to justify their existence. Atheism is just a mindset that what is real is real and what isn't isn't. It is a recognition of fact and a rejection of fantasy. It is no more or less complicated than that. When I look at my dog I don't have faith it is a dog. When I read your posts I don't have faith you are smarter than my dog.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. And you can't cloak it in science. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

As hard as you try to make that claim it simply isn't true. Atheists don't
run around imagining fairy tales are real. They don't need an imaginary super being to justify their existence. Atheism is just a mindset that what is real is real and what isn't isn't. It is a recognition of fact and a rejection of fantasy. It is no more or less complicated than that. When I look at my dog I don't have faith it is a dog. When I read your posts I don't have faith you are smarter than my dog.

I don't care about your shameful attempts of denigration. If you believe in something that you don't know to be true, then you're exercising faith. That's the definition of faith. Personally, I think atheists are liars anyhow. They want to deny a deity to not have accountability. But whatever to that; I'm no their mom. My main point is atheism is faith. You've made up your own so-called fairy tale to soothe your psyche.

 

[orogenicman]

No I am asking you a straightforward question in response to your claim that I am "crazy if you think that this explain away the value of faith". Either you know the value of faith or you don't. In response, you decided to move the goalpost, I assume because you don't know the answer to the question. Science has found no unambiguous evidence for the supernatural. Even the word, supernatural, is meaningless. Either it is natural or is not. There is no "super" in natural.

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence. Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

A Scientist...no way!! lmao. Let me guess: he's a food tester at an abattoir!! A guy with a degree sprouting that stuff is a nonsense!! If he was a scientist he'd understand that one does not "believe in" Science!!

Greg

I believe that he's a legit scientist. But like many scientists who let their egoes rule them, he has convinced himself that the so-called absence of proof is in fact proof. It's hackery; and as a scientist he ought to know better.

Oh please. Absence of evidence is simply a lack of evidence. It is a null hypothesis. I have no evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy. So why would I believe in it? Similarly, I've seen no evidence for the existence of your god, so why would I believe I in its existence? You believe in the god of Abraham, I presume. Very little in that book, aside from historical references to places and people, is believable. Certainly you can throw out the entire first two books, at a minimum, along with every supernatural claim. Even Thomas Jefferson rejected the supernatural aspects of it.

Consider this analogy. You are a juror, one of twelve members enlisted to decide the guilt or innocence of a man on trial for murder. Despite all the evidence of his guilt. Despite the fact that there were 80,000 people in the stadium that day, and cameras all around that caught him in the act - despite his confession to committing the crime, you are the one holdout in the jury in finding him guilty. And you do it because you believe, that hold out hope that somewhere someone knows something, or else there might be some remote possibility that there is evidence missed that would prove his innocence. This is your faith. You wouldn't do this in your normal life - if you were sick, you'd go to the doctor and see if he can heal you. You wouldn't trust in a local witch doctor to read tea leaves in the hope for a cure. And yet despite the utter lack of evidence, you have faith that this magic sky daddy is real and will keep you safe in this dangerous world. It is a delusion.

 

[HUGGY]

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. And you can't cloak it in science. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

As hard as you try to make that claim it simply isn't true. Atheists don't
run around imagining fairy tales are real. They don't need an imaginary super being to justify their existence. Atheism is just a mindset that what is real is real and what isn't isn't. It is a recognition of fact and a rejection of fantasy. It is no more or less complicated than that. When I look at my dog I don't have faith it is a dog. When I read your posts I don't have faith you are smarter than my dog.

I don't care about your shameful attempts of denigration. If you believe in something that you don't know to be true, then you're exercising faith. That's the definition of faith. Personally, I think atheists are liars anyhow. They want to deny a deity to not have accountability. But whatever to that; I'm no their mom. My main point is atheism is faith. You've made up your own so-called fairy tale to soothe your psyche.

Solly Chawlie. Believing in something you don't know to be true is stupid and AKA lying to yourself.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence.

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. And you can't cloak it in science. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

As hard as you try to make that claim it simply isn't true. Atheists don't
run around imagining fairy tales are real. They don't need an imaginary super being to justify their existence. Atheism is just a mindset that what is real is real and what isn't isn't. It is a recognition of fact and a rejection of fantasy. It is no more or less complicated than that. When I look at my dog I don't have faith it is a dog. When I read your posts I don't have faith you are smarter than my dog.

I don't care about your shameful attempts of denigration. If you believe in something that you don't know to be true, then you're exercising faith. That's the definition of faith. Personally, I think atheists are liars anyhow. They want to deny a deity to not have accountability. But whatever to that; I'm no their mom. My main point is atheism is faith. You've made up your own so-called fairy tale to soothe your psyche.

Solly Chawlie. Believing in something you don't know to be true is stupid and AKA lying to yourself.

Well then, you're stupid AKA lying to yourself (like I said); cos you don't know that God doesn't exist. Yet, you profess it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

Faith is not simply a matter of presenting evidence. Faith is a spiritual consciousness that is not always meant to be expressly explained or typified in empirical terms. That doesn't mean that there isn't ultimately a science behind it. But man's understanding will always be limited. We as mortals cannot and will not gain a level of deity; at least that is the reasonable scientific conclusion at this point.

Furthermore, you mock the gray haired magic guy; but you as a scientist know the fragility of this Earth and all these galaxies to subsist. For life to exist as an inexplicable big bang_ as something of a scientific coincidence; talk about faith. Your faith that a deity doesn't exist is the real whopper. That's why great men like TJ called a deity 'self evident.' My suggestion, get over yourself.

A Scientist...no way!! lmao. Let me guess: he's a food tester at an abattoir!! A guy with a degree sprouting that stuff is a nonsense!! If he was a scientist he'd understand that one does not "believe in" Science!!

Greg

I believe that he's a legit scientist. But like many scientists who let their egoes rule them, he has convinced himself that the so-called absence of proof is in fact proof. It's hackery; and as a scientist he ought to know better.

Oh please. Absence of evidence is simply a lack of evidence. It is a null hypothesis. I have no evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy. So why would I believe in it? Similarly, I've seen no evidence for the existence of your god, so why would I believe I in its existence? You believe in the god of Abraham, I presume. Very little in that book, aside from historical references to places and people, is believable. Certainly you can throw out the entire first two books, at a minimum, along with every supernatural claim. Even Thomas Jefferson rejected the supernatural aspects of it.

Consider this analogy. You are a juror, one of twelve members enlisted to decide the guilt or innocence of a man on trial for murder. Despite all the evidence of his guilt. Despite the fact that there were 80,000 people in the stadium that day, and cameras all around that caught him in the act - despite his confession to committing the crime, you are the one holdout in the jury in finding him guilty. And you do it because you believe, that hold out hope that somewhere someone knows something, or else there might be some remote possibility that there is evidence missed that would prove his innocence. This is your faith. You wouldn't do this in your normal life - if you were sick, you'd go to the doctor and see if he can heal you. You wouldn't trust in a local witch doctor to read tea leaves in the hope for a cure. And yet despite the utter lack of evidence, you have faith that this magic sky daddy is real and will keep you safe in this dangerous world. It is a delusion.

Don't make the debate about lack of evidence when time and time again you claim that it's all about the evidence. Well, you don't have the evidence that God doesn't exist. You simply don't. And in fact at a minimum there is circumstantial evidence that God does exist; and yet, you deny it in the name of what now; say it with me: YOUR FAITH.

 

[HUGGY]

Thank you Mr. Obvious. Faith, as I've said before, is a belief in something not in evidence. So of course it is not a matter of evidence. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Do I need to repeat Dr. Conkin's expose about the morality of nature? We mortals? As far as we can tell, everything is 'mortal'. Even the stars form and are destroyed in planetary nebulae or supernovae. Everything decomposes due to entropy. But we do have things that might come close to immortality right inside us. Those are the very atoms upon which we are composed. Those atoms were formed in the explosions of stars. Yes, we are star stuff. And according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed: It can only be converted to energy or other matter, and visa versa. If you want to call that spirituality, go right ahead. but there is nothing supernatural about it. It obeys well known laws of physics.

I cannot mock that which for which there is no evidence of its existence. I can, however, consider the delusions of those who believe sans evidence to be a monumental waste of time. Yes, the earth is fragile, on a cosmic scale. The galaxies are fragile on a much larger scale or time and space. But there is almost nothing we can do as animals to destroy them. We can, however, do immeasurable damage to the Earth's ecosystems, its life. That is very fragile. But life does not exist as an 'inexplicable big bang". I have no idea where you got that idea. Unless you are suggesting that the universe is finely tuned for life. To that I have to laugh. Look at the massive volume of the universe where you cannot live. Finely tuned for life? I think not. I do not have faith that a deity does not exist. Faith is a belief. Not believing is not faith. It is simply a recognition that there is no evidence that would lead one to the conclusion that a deity does exist.

Sorry, dude. But atheism is a faith. You don't know that God doesn't exist. You want to believe it though. That's your faith. You may not believe it is such a deep faith. But when a man denies God's existence, he frees himself of a certain accountability. He can justify an ends justifies the means. He can justify an every man for himself mentality. You have subscribed to a faith indeed. And you can't cloak it in science. You have subscribed to it; and you didn't need science to do it. In fact, science was the last thing you needed to do it despite how you've fooled yourself into thinking that.

As hard as you try to make that claim it simply isn't true. Atheists don't
run around imagining fairy tales are real. They don't need an imaginary super being to justify their existence. Atheism is just a mindset that what is real is real and what isn't isn't. It is a recognition of fact and a rejection of fantasy. It is no more or less complicated than that. When I look at my dog I don't have faith it is a dog. When I read your posts I don't have faith you are smarter than my dog.

I don't care about your shameful attempts of denigration. If you believe in something that you don't know to be true, then you're exercising faith. That's the definition of faith. Personally, I think atheists are liars anyhow. They want to deny a deity to not have accountability. But whatever to that; I'm no their mom. My main point is atheism is faith. You've made up your own so-called fairy tale to soothe your psyche.

Solly Chawlie. Believing in something you don't know to be true is stupid and AKA lying to yourself.

Well then, you're stupid AKA lying to yourself (like I said); cos you don't know that God doesn't exist. Yet, you profess it.

I don't give a rat shit about your sky fairy. All that I profess is that I wish people would stop wasting their time and money on such nonsense. This would be a better world if we focused on what is real and right in front of our noses. There is plenty to do. Religion is purely a waste of resources.