Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Mike, the discussion actually ended a while ago, the moment he released his inner troll.
I have no need to verify or reject your claims.
You claims are useless to me.
They may be very useful to you.
Let me ask you a question:
Are you qualified to debate or write a peer review of this author (you want people to read)?
If you are, then you don't need to refer to read a book, you can make your own case, cite sources, make footnotes, etc.
If you can't do that, if you are not on the author's level, then I can understand why you just say "read this guy."
Others around here do that, because they don't own or grasp what they are actually talking about.
I am not on a scientific level of scientists, but that doesn't mean I can't critique their level of common sense or their essential point of view.
I have noticed a great trend in the atheistic community that people will fawn over scientists the exact same way the theists fawn over religious experts and leaders.
Both just indicate that the fawners don't own what they claim to believe...
You claims are useless to me.
They may be very useful to you.
Let me ask you a question:
Are you qualified to debate or write a peer review of this author (you want people to read)?
If you are, then you don't need to refer to read a book, you can make your own case, cite sources, make footnotes, etc.
If you can't do that, if you are not on the author's level, then I can understand why you just say "read this guy."
Others around here do that, because they don't own or grasp what they are actually talking about.
I am not on a scientific level of scientists, but that doesn't mean I can't critique their level of common sense or their essential point of view.
I have noticed a great trend in the atheistic community that people will fawn over scientists the exact same way the theists fawn over religious experts and leaders.
Both just indicate that the fawners don't own what they claim to believe...
Iâm not discounting what youâre saying - I donât know enough about it and I have not read the reference you listed. However, from what I grasp, the modeling you are referring to has to do with interacting dummy variables to create a gray spectrum of human behavior (where before only black or white existed). Although replication of human behavior is possible (and probable as it becomes a game of factorials) I donât believe the mind, body and soul are one object â what I imagine Kosko will eventual state, if he hasnât already.
Oh yes, the vast majority of ET members are always right...
LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!
LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!
you tell me why my quote was out of context.
How did the rest of the quote negate the point I was making.
Stu is clearly a troll. And now your statement is bullshit if you are applying it to me.
I have provided quotes from nobel prize winners saying the universe looks designed.
here is a clear one from leonard susskind one of the founders of string theory.
-----
Question: If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
Answer: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of natureâs fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.
===
do you see that quote.
If we do not have an almost infinite universes -
Without any explanation of natureâs fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.
that is just one of the many quotes I have provided from leading scientists.
How did the rest of his quote negate that point thunder dope.
Does it not say you could suppose a creator. Which was my point.
I did not say you have to believe there is a Creator... only that a Creator is one of the reasonable explanations.
Right now - it looks to many scientists the Universe did or at least could have begun at the big bang. So if it did you could suppose a Creator.
The rest of the quote stand for the fact that if the Universe just is - than you really have no need to suppose a Creator.
Which is not inconsistent at all with the points I have been making. I have never said we have proof the universe was created. The rest of the quote you provided from Hawking did not in any way counter the points I was making.
If you comments were not directed at me - I take back my thunder dope comment.
You say atheism, which by any definition must mean non belief, is a belief! That's word games for you.
Do you suppose people choose to be born white or black? What you say suggests they do. Someone could choose to do a Michael Jackson on themselves and choose to be white?
In the same manner everyone is born atheist. They have to either be brainwashed into or choose to become theist.