Atheism has less tolerance than theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2014, 06:51 PM
Re: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
3/10 troll job, kinda hang onto the believable longer than that

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 06:55 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 06:19 PM)OurFather Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  For the very reason I stated. It's an argument for nothing. A real god could make things work, no matter how well it's designed.

I suspect you get strange looks, as you cooked up a fantasy, and expect others to accept it. You have no evidence for it. If you do, let's see it.
- Pumapunku site in South America - no way any humans could have created such stone work. To replicate this today requires lazers to do the symetry.
-The pyramids were not created by primitive man. Unless they had the technology of levitation through sound.
-The mayan pyramids, what a coincidence that none of the remaining natives know how to replicate it. Seems to be the story every time.
-Why is the holy land considered the birth place of the Sumerian gods who landed on earth eons ago? Holy Land is now occupied by Chrisitianity, Jews, and Islam because they know our creators first landed there before the ice-age.
- The missing link will never be found because there is no missing link. Darwinism fails to explain how humanity came to be, we should still be a neanderthal levels of intelligence. It takes millions of years to evolve not a mere 100,000 which scientists claim.

Well, a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions and obvious lack of critical or skeptical investigation doesn't make for a convincing argument.

You sound like a home-schooled sixteen year old.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-09-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 06:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:19 PM)OurFather Wrote:  - Pumapunku site in South America - no way any humans could have created such stone work. To replicate this today requires lazers to do the symetry.
-The pyramids were not created by primitive man. Unless they had the technology of levitation through sound.
-The mayan pyramids, what a coincidence that none of the remaining natives know how to replicate it. Seems to be the story every time.
-Why is the holy land considered the birth place of the Sumerian gods who landed on earth eons ago? Holy Land is now occupied by Chrisitianity, Jews, and Islam because they know our creators first landed there before the ice-age.
- The missing link will never be found because there is no missing link. Darwinism fails to explain how humanity came to be, we should still be a neanderthal levels of intelligence. It takes millions of years to evolve not a mere 100,000 which scientists claim.

Well, a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions and obvious lack of critical or skeptical investigation doesn't make for a convincing argument.

You sound like a home-schooled sixteen year old.
And most home-schoolers do a better job...

Get back under your bridge troll...


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 07:00 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 05:49 PM)OurFather Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 05:44 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What organization would that be? Consider

Scientific community. When acquiring a grant to do an experiment with my colleagues I dare never say that I doubt atheism. Or I'll get kicked out of the team.

The is no grant proposal I've ever seen that references the beliefs (or not) of the people on the team. Something here stinks to high heaven.

I'm one of a few "humanist"/non-believers in one of my fields of study, that traditionally leads to jobs in religion. Even *they* don't mess with me.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 07:01 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)OurFather Wrote:  I'm a student studying theoretical physics.

Here's the problem I have with fellow colleagues. They have no tolerance for anyone that goes against an establish theory whether its mathematics or physics. If you so much even say that the speed of light can be broken, you can expect backlash.

But here's the kicker, I'm a closet-theist in an organization that only lets in atheists. It's like a gay coming out in modern times as a comparison. But I dare not every mention to anyone that I believe in 'intelligent design' and that humanity will scientifically prove it.

I know a few other upcoming students who feel like Michaelango vs the Vatican in centuries ago. Today it is the atheist mainstream media who demonizes any physicist who so much even thinks intelligent design is possible.

Personally I think the universe was created by an advanced civilization, and the big bang is a big science experiment to them. Their creators were also other enlightened entities. We the humans will become gods one day to other primitive civilizations, one day creating their big bang. The question is 'who/what was the original source?", and no i find it hard to believe that it was a spontaneous hydrogen atom that came into existence who is our god.

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic.
~Bertrand Russell

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
01-09-2014, 07:11 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2014 08:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 06:19 PM)OurFather Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  For the very reason I stated. It's an argument for nothing. A real god could make things work, no matter how well it's designed.

I suspect you get strange looks, as you cooked up a fantasy, and expect others to accept it. You have no evidence for it. If you do, let's see it.
- Pumapunku site in South America - no way any humans could have created such stone work. To replicate this today requires lazers to do the symetry.
-The pyramids were not created by primitive man. Unless they had the technology of levitation through sound.
-The mayan pyramids, what a coincidence that none of the remaining natives know how to replicate it. Seems to be the story every time.
-Why is the holy land considered the birth place of the Sumerian gods who landed on earth eons ago? Holy Land is now occupied by Chrisitianity, Jews, and Islam because they know our creators first landed there before the ice-age.
- The missing link will never be found because there is no missing link. Darwinism fails to explain how humanity came to be, we should still be a neanderthal levels of intelligence. It takes millions of years to evolve not a mere 100,000 which scientists claim.

So your deity is a "god of the gaps" as you are too uneducated to figure out how they "done it". The fact that civilizations declined, and knowledge was lost, is irrelevant. We know the long and varied steps with many mistakes the Egyptians took to be able to make the pyramids. The fact the civilization declines, and the knowledge was not passed on, is an argument from ignorance. YOU seem to be ignorant of the field of Archaeology, so you fill in your huge gaps with fairy tales. You are no better than the alien hunters. (I know, ... see me signature Weeping )
Could WE, tomorrow actually go to the moon ? No. In 50 years THAT technology is now lost, and would have to be reassembled, and many many people re-educated, and teams re-assembled.

"Why is the holy land considered the birth place of the Sumerian gods who landed on earth eons ago?"

It's not, except by loony toons, not unlike yourself, that have no clue about ancient civilizations. The is no scholar today who would assert THAT crap. Darwinism fails at nothing. What fails is you and your ignorance of Evolution and Biology.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-09-2014, 07:13 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 06:19 PM)OurFather Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  For the very reason I stated. It's an argument for nothing. A real god could make things work, no matter how well it's designed.

I suspect you get strange looks, as you cooked up a fantasy, and expect others to accept it. You have no evidence for it. If you do, let's see it.
- Pumapunku site in South America - no way any humans could have created such stone work. To replicate this today requires lazers to do the symetry.
-The pyramids were not created by primitive man. Unless they had the technology of levitation through sound.
-The mayan pyramids, what a coincidence that none of the remaining natives know how to replicate it. Seems to be the story every time.
-Why is the holy land considered the birth place of the Sumerian gods who landed on earth eons ago? Holy Land is now occupied by Chrisitianity, Jews, and Islam because they know our creators first landed there before the ice-age.
- The missing link will never be found because there is no missing link. Darwinism fails to explain how humanity came to be, we should still be a neanderthal levels of intelligence. It takes millions of years to evolve not a mere 100,000 which scientists claim.

If I were you I wouldn't bring any of this up at your job interviews...just saying.

Facepalm

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
01-09-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 06:41 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:19 PM)OurFather Wrote:  - Pumapunku site in South America - no way any humans could have created such stone work. To replicate this today requires lazers to do the symetry.
-The pyramids were not created by primitive man. Unless they had the technology of levitation through sound.
-The mayan pyramids, what a coincidence that none of the remaining natives know how to replicate it. Seems to be the story every time.
-Why is the holy land considered the birth place of the Sumerian gods who landed on earth eons ago? Holy Land is now occupied by Chrisitianity, Jews, and Islam because they know our creators first landed there before the ice-age.
- The missing link will never be found because there is no missing link. Darwinism fails to explain how humanity came to be, we should still be a neanderthal levels of intelligence. It takes millions of years to evolve not a mere 100,000 which scientists claim.
So...much...wrong...

WeepingCensoredDrinking Beverage

I am a certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist, and no religion has yet said the reason they were centered in the ancient Near East was because it's where something landed. I would know that. Thumbsup

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2014 07:25 PM by Kevin M. Dodd.)
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
Me thinks that you've watched to many episodes of 'Ancient Aliens'. The Sumerian 'Annunaki' creation myth isn't verifiable by any real proof, and trying to demonstrate it's veracity with various examples of unexplained, ancient structures doesn't lend your belief any credibility. Besides, they're not really 'gods', if they came to Earth to live, or used indigenous lifeforms to create mankind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)OurFather Wrote:  I'm a student studying theoretical physics.

Here's the problem I have with fellow colleagues. They have no tolerance for anyone that goes against an establish theory whether its mathematics or physics. If you so much even say that the speed of light can be broken, you can expect backlash.

But here's the kicker, I'm a closet-theist in an organization that only lets in atheists. It's like a gay coming out in modern times as a comparison. But I dare not every mention to anyone that I believe in 'intelligent design' and that humanity will scientifically prove it.

I know a few other upcoming students who feel like Michaelango vs the Vatican in centuries ago. Today it is the atheist mainstream media who demonizes any physicist who so much even thinks intelligent design is possible.

Personally I think the universe was created by an advanced civilization, and the big bang is a big science experiment to them. Their creators were also other enlightened entities. We the humans will become gods one day to other primitive civilizations, one day creating their big bang. The question is 'who/what was the original source?", and no i find it hard to believe that it was a spontaneous hydrogen atom that came into existence who is our god.

The problem is your subject is theoretical physics & not biology.
Study biology further and you will see there is no intelligent design.
I used to be a teacher of ID following the likes of Michael Behe, Rabbi Schroeder & Stephen C. Meyer for a few years until I started to study evolution properly and recognized all the failed design. 99% of species extinct, horrific congenital mutilations, children dying every 45 seconds from Malaria, staggeringly torturous diseases - all point to unintelligent design.

Yes, there are pretty butterflies, cute babies and beautiful women which may bring a spark of "wow there must be intelligent design" - but this intuition is deeply mistaken. The collateral damage caused by 4 Billion years of evolution is utterly shocking even though some of the 'survivors' do look designed, after all they are the refined survivors at the expense of the other 99% extinctions. Often there are also signs of suboptimal design even if not out right unintelligent.

So we have a mixture of unintelligent design[UD], suboptimal design [SD] and appearance of intelligent design [ID]- what is the best explanation ?


The ID argument runs as follows:
Premise 1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
Premise 2.Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
Premise 3. This creator is God.

Premise 1 - is false. How can you say that a congenital mutilation such as Harlequins Ichtheosis is "too well designed to originate by chance ?
see:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=harleq...36&bih=710
- just as one of many examples ?
- How many counter examples are required to refute premise 1 ? I can be here all night and give counter examples to intelligent design ?

I my self am embarrassed and shameful for teaching intelligent design 15 years ago because subsequently I became a haematologist specialist and the very examples of ID given by Behe (wrote "Darwins black box" and key ID preacher) lead to some of the worst medical catastrophes imaginable !!!
ID talks about "the miracle of blood clotting, the intelligence of blood carrying oxygen to organs etc) However the unintelligence of the design are obvious - we have multiple diseases JUST relating to haematology due to the screwed up design mechanisms involved:

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP),
essential thrombocythemia
Polycythemia ruba vera
Dozens of cancers just related to blood
(ALL, AML, APML, CLL, Myeloma's, Lymphoma's NHL/SLL/HL....,CML...)
Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP)
Dozens of types of haemophelia
Sickle cell and dozens of other genetic mistakes (various thalassemia's)
erythroblastopenia's
Different types of autoimmune hemolytic anemia's
Hemoglobinopathies
Hereditary pyropoikilocytosis (HPP)
Triosephosphate isomerase deficiency
Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia
Disseminated intravascular coagulation disorders
A whole range of hypogammaglobulinemia's
Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome

...............and I have barely touched the surface - just for screwed up blood disorders.

....and you call this "intelligent design" ??????????
....and you wonder why Intelligent design is ridiculed ?

it is self evident that premise 1 is false. There is massive evidence to support premise 1 for being utterly false.
Premise 1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance

??? too well designed - there are too many flaws leading to too many barbaric torturous diseases due to suboptimal design.

So why do you stick to intelligent design ?


Fine tuning of the universe ?
We live on a pale blue rock in the midst of a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999​9999999999% uninhabitable universe.
Our pale blue rock is fragile and many parts are uninhabitable.
...and even if it is a remarkable improbability that life would evolve to the diversity that exists today - there is a 100% certainty that the fine tuning is so imperfect that ALL life on our planet will be extinct in a few Billion years which is a tiny fraction of time from the perspective of the life of stars & galaxies. (seems like a long time to us humans but we have only been around for 100,000 years) - you should know this as a theoretical physicist.
...Entropy will eventually destroy everything in our region of the universe and perhaps the cycle just goes round in circles forever or keeps expanding or bubbling new universes forever - so much for fine tuning.
The law of conservation of energy does give us the impression energy cannot be destroyed or created ex-Nihilo so ultimately there is neither beginning nor ending - it is just energy changing forms forever.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Baruch's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: