This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[Grumblenuts]

So there is no data for the cause of the big bang or for where the matter came from and dopy physicist just claim that the matter created itself, in opposition to the law of conservation of mass. So when scientist have no answer they create a fake one then tell us we must believe, and MORONS do

Dragging conservation of mass into this is just silly. The "law" only holds for non-relativistic reactions involving insignificant radioactive decay. The Big Bang obviously involved relativistic speeds and temperatures. Hydrogen gas was the only element that could result initially, then helium as things cooled a bit, etc. But there was no initial mass to weigh for comparison to reaction products later.

Many have idiotically speculated about the entire mass of the (known, current) universe being concentrated into some tiny volume of space, but that's just crazy talk. What makes sense is all the mass (including the "dark" stuff) eventually being gobbled up by black holes and converted to energy distributed throughout all remaining space (and counterspace). None of this positive vs negative bullshit either. Charge or no charge. Spin or no spin. There's direction but no polarity in nature. The spatial and counter spatial, the magnetic and dielectric, the actual components of electricity, exactly as always found coupled and central to every galaxy, driving the entire show, often with some help from a black hole. Same goes for every atom, star, and permanent "magnet."

 

[Colin norris]

Atheists can't explain where the Universe came from

And they don't want anyone else to either

That is simply not true.
Atheist do not specific a lot have s theory as to how the universe came to being but will confirm it certainly wasn't some creepy ghost who did it.

Atheist is the most democratic system of belief and NEVER stopped you from believing your rubbish. We do not care if you believe a lie forever. The fact you have no evidence convinces atheists they are correct. To say they are attempting to stop others believing where the universe came from is very immature bordering on stupid.

I think your issue is you feel slightly threatened because atheists won't buy the God rubbish.
You're not real good at this god stuff. Get some facts.

 

[K9Buck]

Atheist is the most democratic system of belief and NEVER stopped you from believing your rubbish.

LOL. Yea, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, were all about democratic systems. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Now reduced to name dropping long dead, scary sounding foreigners..
Columbus, Napoleon, Goliath,.. look out, WHOA!

 

[Colin norris]

Atheist is the most democratic system of belief and NEVER stopped you from believing your rubbish.

LOL. Yea, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, were all about democratic systems. Thanks for the laugh!

I knew a malignant.lump.like wouldn't understand it. It's far to deep.
The system of democracy is well entrenched in religion. That is. You can be what you want.
You're are so obsessed by you celestial ghost, you forgot what allowed you to choose it.
If ignorance was an Olympic sport, you'd have a dozen gold medals.

 

[Penelope]

Atheist is the most democratic system of belief and NEVER stopped you from believing your rubbish.

LOL. Yea, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, were all about democratic systems. Thanks for the laugh!

No they were not, they were:
Totalitarian regimes are often characterized by extensive political repression, a complete lack of democracy, widespread personality cultism, absolute control over the economy, massive censorship,
--------------------------------That describes Donald J. Tramp

 

[ding]

So there is no data for the cause of the big bang or for where the matter came from and dopy physicist just claim that the matter created itself, in opposition to the law of conservation of mass. So when scientist have no answer they create a fake one then tell us we must believe, and MORONS do

Dragging conservation of mass into this is just silly. The "law" only holds for non-relativistic reactions involving insignificant radioactive decay. The Big Bang obviously involved relativistic speeds and temperatures. Hydrogen gas was the only element that could result initially, then helium as things cooled a bit, etc. But there was no initial mass to weigh for comparison to reaction products later.

Many have idiotically speculated about the entire mass of the (known, current) universe being concentrated into some tiny volume of space, but that's just crazy talk. What makes sense is all the mass (including the "dark" stuff) eventually being gobbled up by black holes and converted to energy distributed throughout all remaining space (and counterspace). None of this positive vs negative bullshit either. Charge or no charge. Spin or no spin. There's direction but no polarity in nature. The spatial and counter spatial, the magnetic and dielectric, the actual components of electricity, exactly as always found coupled and central to every galaxy, driving the entire show, often with some help from a black hole. Same goes for every atom, star, and permanent "magnet."

That was the stupidest video ever. No wonder you have such crazy views and can't back up anything you believe.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way.

You're a liar.

It's on tape, the votes are all recorded, where is the lie?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I doubt all people of faith looked away. But certainly some people of faith did. It makes one question the level of faith for those that did.

Nobody "looked away". The atheists claim that Trump wasn't morally perfect and, therefore, we Christians should have voted for lying, crooked, Hillary, the proponent of cutting up babies into little pieces.

'Wasn't morally perfect"? That's putting it mildly. If he had grabbed your daughter, your wife or mother, is that how you would have described it?

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

whereas socialism is obviously far more concerned with the people in general and ensuring them revenue sensitive public access to essential goods and services.

LOL. Sucker.

At least I speak from experience, being a long retired business and home owner, Fart Noise Maker. Eat my shorts.

Like yourself, I'm a business owner and home owner.

I always find it amusing to be called a commie simply for believing that "we the people" owe it to our humanity to do something about unregulated greed and consumption. I don't pretend at precise answers, but only at seeing a problem that needs attention.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

See WHAT?

God's presence. His works. The universe. His creation. It's all around you and within you. You are his creation. Why do you reject him? He gave you life. He wants you to believe in and follow him and live forever with him. Seek and you will find.

You take all of the above in faith. Look that last word up in a dictionary and have a little respect for what others believe and disbelieve.

There is neither proof, nor disproof, of a God. For every good you see in the world, there is pain and suffering and misery.

"Whence comes evil"? If God is all powerful, how is it that she is unable to achieve what is good without the presence of evil?

 

[frigidweirdo]

See WHAT?

God's presence. His works. The universe. His creation. It's all around you and within you. You are his creation. Why do you reject him? He gave you life. He wants you to believe in and follow him and live forever with him. Seek and you will find.

You take all of the above in faith. Look that last word up in a dictionary and have a little respect for what others believe and disbelieve.

There is neither proof, nor disproof, of a God. For every good you see in the world, there is pain and suffering and misery.

"Whence comes evil"? If God is all powerful, how is it that she is unable to achieve what is good without the presence of evil?

There's literally nothing.

And those people who say "there is a God" or "there isn't a God" are silly because they're literally making it up.

Where does evil come from? It comes from our minds.

Get this. 6 million Jews were killed in a period of say, 10 years. "evil" (and I'm not saying this isn't evil).

But every year billions upon billions of animals are slaughtered for food and other products. "not evil", apparently.

Which proves that "evil" is merely in the eye of the beholder. Not some God given thing. Hell is merely a human construct.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Then there is the very logical answer as to what started everything, per your religious followers: An all-powerful, all-knowing, flawlessly perfect, invisible thingy invented the entire universe and all in it.
Of course, as human males are physically stronger than females, the invisible thingy must certainly be a male and as we are the most intelligent creatures on the planet, we must certainly look like the invisible thingy, who despite his perfection, seems to suffer from such emotions as insecurity, jealousy, anger, control issues and rage.

Actually there is no logical answer, as there is no data to come to a conclusion. Yes even with everything that humanity knows there is no data at all to determine the creation of the universe. However since nothing can not create something there was something that can not be reconciled and was named God. God is the unknown, and the unknown is actually a scientific fact, and is actually the reason for science

I agree with much of what you wrote. Where you went off the tracks is in the suggestion that in the nothing there was "something" called God. You are simply falling back on faith.

Some physicist believe that there is an endless universe that has always been. How is that any different than believing in a God who has either always been - or was created from nothing?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

See WHAT?

God's presence. His works. The universe. His creation. It's all around you and within you. You are his creation. Why do you reject him? He gave you life. He wants you to believe in and follow him and live forever with him. Seek and you will find.

You take all of the above in faith. Look that last word up in a dictionary and have a little respect for what others believe and disbelieve.

There is neither proof, nor disproof, of a God. For every good you see in the world, there is pain and suffering and misery.

"Whence comes evil"? If God is all powerful, how is it that she is unable to achieve what is good without the presence of evil?

There's literally nothing.

And those people who say "there is a God" or "there isn't a God" are silly because they're literally making it up.

Where does evil come from? It comes from our minds.

Get this. 6 million Jews were killed in a period of say, 10 years. "evil" (and I'm not saying this isn't evil).

But every year billions upon billions of animals are slaughtered for food and other products. "not evil", apparently.

Which proves that "evil" is merely in the eye of the beholder. Not some God given thing. Hell is merely a human construct.

Yes, I'm familiar with "Beyond Good and Evil" and it is a fair point. However, I might muddy the water with the suggestion that our constructs are reality.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

whereas socialism is obviously far more concerned with the people in general and ensuring all revenue sensitive public access to essential goods and services.

So then as a long retired business and home owner you would prefer to live in a socialist society? Is that correct?

Your signature correctly states that there is no defined dogma to socialism. Hence, it's a bit foggy as to what you are accusing when you charge someone of wanting socialism.

 

[ding]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Then there is the very logical answer as to what started everything, per your religious followers: An all-powerful, all-knowing, flawlessly perfect, invisible thingy invented the entire universe and all in it.
Of course, as human males are physically stronger than females, the invisible thingy must certainly be a male and as we are the most intelligent creatures on the planet, we must certainly look like the invisible thingy, who despite his perfection, seems to suffer from such emotions as insecurity, jealousy, anger, control issues and rage.

Actually there is no logical answer, as there is no data to come to a conclusion. Yes even with everything that humanity knows there is no data at all to determine the creation of the universe. However since nothing can not create something there was something that can not be reconciled and was named God. God is the unknown, and the unknown is actually a scientific fact, and is actually the reason for science

I agree with much of what you wrote. Where you went off the tracks is in the suggestion that in the nothing there was "something" called God. You are simply falling back on faith.

Some physicist believe that there is an endless universe that has always been. How is that any different than believing in a God who has either always been - or was created from nothing?

When you say that some physicists believe that there is an endless universe that has always been, are you referring to multiverses? Because if so the correct way to say that would be to say endless creation of universes but each creation is not eternal into the past but is eternal into the future. In other words, if there are other universes besides ours, those universes would have had beginnings like ours did.

The reason I bring this up is that that is much different than a universe that has always existed. In general there have always been two schools of thought, our universe was created or our universe has always existed. Multiverse theory is not compatible with the latter. And the later does not seem plausible given the data we have.

As for your question how would multiverses being created from nothing differ from God creating universes from nothing? The obvious answer is intent. If the universe were created through natural process we are an accidental happenstance. It's just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. If the universe were created by something like consciousness without form (God) then it should be obvious that the creation of the universe was intentional and that the corporeal proceeded from the incorporeal. There is no middle ground. There are no other options. Either the material world was created by consciousness without form or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

 

[ding]

whereas socialism is obviously far more concerned with the people in general and ensuring all revenue sensitive public access to essential goods and services.

So then as a long retired business and home owner you would prefer to live in a socialist society? Is that correct?

Your signature correctly states that there is no defined dogma to socialism. Hence, it's a bit foggy as to what you are accusing when you charge someone of wanting socialism.

Sure, that's the point. Socialism is intentionally vague and does not want to be examined. That was one of the points in Igor Shafarevich's book, The Socialist Phenomenon.

The Socialist Phenomenon

robertlstephens.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

whereas socialism is obviously far more concerned with the people in general and ensuring all revenue sensitive public access to essential goods and services.

So then as a long retired business and home owner you would prefer to live in a socialist society? Is that correct?

Your signature correctly states that there is no defined dogma to socialism. Hence, it's a bit foggy as to what you are accusing when you charge someone of wanting socialism.

Sure, that's the point. Socialism is intentionally vague and does not want to be examined. That was one of the points in Igor Shafarevich's book, The Socialist Phenomenon.

The Socialist Phenomenon

robertlstephens.com

So then as a long retired business and home owner you would prefer to live in a socialist society? Is that correct?

So then your offer of straw attack here rather than addressing anything actually stated head on is just more pathetic political positioning? Is that correct? <<-- rhetorical -- don't answer that, idjit.

Newsflash. This ain't Russia. Fact is you've likely been living in and fully enjoying the benefits of this combination socialist/capitalist economy since birth. No one's ever offered me any real choice in the matter. You apparently think you've had some, Mr. Intentionally-Vague-And-Does-Not-Want-To-Be-Examined. Well goody for you, ya stupid shit. Now kindly cry me a river, have a cow, and go piss up a rope.

 

[ding]

whereas socialism is obviously far more concerned with the people in general and ensuring all revenue sensitive public access to essential goods and services.

So then as a long retired business and home owner you would prefer to live in a socialist society? Is that correct?

Your signature correctly states that there is no defined dogma to socialism. Hence, it's a bit foggy as to what you are accusing when you charge someone of wanting socialism.

Sure, that's the point. Socialism is intentionally vague and does not want to be examined. That was one of the points in Igor Shafarevich's book, The Socialist Phenomenon.

The Socialist Phenomenon

robertlstephens.com

So then as a long retired business and home owner you would prefer to live in a socialist society? Is that correct?

So then your offer of straw attack here rather than addressing anything actually stated head on is just more pathetic political positioning? Is that correct? <<-- rhetorical -- don't answer that, idjit.

Newsflash. This ain't Russia. Fact is you've likely been living in and fully enjoying the benefits of this combination socialist/capitalist economy since birth. No one's ever offered me any real choice in the matter. You apparently think you've had some, Mr. Intentionally-Vague-And-Does-Not-Want-To-Be-Examined. Well goody for you, ya stupid shit. Now kindly cry me a river, have a cow, and go piss up a rope.

You got all of that from me asking a question?

 

[BreezeWood]

Sure, that's the point. Socialism is intentionally vague and does not want to be examined. That was one of the points in Igor Shafarevich's book, The Socialist Phenomenon.

.
intentionally vague ... and does not want to be examined -
.

.
and your 10000 pg. christian bible of forgeries and fallacies is a work of discipline.


you just lose your sense of joy when it's you being run out ...