Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...

Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 17.1%

  • No

    Votes: 58 82.9%
  • Total voters
    70
you are a troll



a - When science tests the universe , findings are

b_ "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind

you took your belief (a) and then married it to Susskind's. (b)

That is what trolls do. You would be thrown out of school for that repeated deception.

Then you try to correct me about "appears" designed vs designed.

I am the one who taught you the difference many threads ago.

I hope you happy with your troll like deception.

You are a sick man to waste so much time being so deceptive.
 
Please remove your tongue from stu's _____ longshot...

Quote from killthesunshine:

stu is no troll. he is the beacon of reason on this forum. if anyone is a troll, or simply delusional it is YOU
More...
 
Quote from jem:


a - When science tests the universe , findings are

b_ "...it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "---Leonard Susskind



you took your belief (a) and then married it to Susskind's. (b)
More...


a) is not my belief you lunatic. When science tests the universe its findings are those that Susskind expounds. You fukin tool.

b) those aren't just Susskind's findings,.... thickhead.

Quote from jem:

Then you try to correct me about "appears" designed vs designed.
More...

Someone needs to try and correct you.
You can't even talk sense....' "appears" designed vs designed. ' WTF are you going on about.


It took me around 6 attempts to teach you to use the spelling cite appropriately instead of site. And you're supposed to be a lawyer..yeah right.

I'm not surprised it would take a lot more attempts than that to teach you how looks designed is not the same as IS designed.

Haven't a clue what's being said have you?

Susskind does not base his scientific findings of the universe on unproven scientific proposals like ultimate universes and landscapes. Even if that were the case which it isn't, Science finds the universe exactly as Susskind describes it, irrespective of his infinite universes proposition.

It's true, you really must be a total spoon.
 
Science finds the universe was created by random chance?

You are the biggest dope in the universe.

Prove your statement without resorting to speculation about infinite other universes.
 
Quote from jem:

Science says the universe was created by random chance?

You must be fricken idiot -- try and prove that statement without resorting to almost infinite other universes.


You are a complete troll from start to finish.

I can give you dozens of quote from nobel prize winning and other decorated scientists to the contrary.

Science stops a fraction of a second after the big bang.

You are such a dope it is unbelievable.
More...
Who mentioned creation you stupid moron.

..." randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design. "

For fuks sakes braniac start to get a clue.
 
what is you point then troll -
you were either making your point with out of context remarks or you were caught being a fraud.
 
How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific?

I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:

Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows:

Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists." (and STU)
 
Well there you are jem. You put your foot in your mouth again just like you did with the Susskind video. That's the point you might notice, if you weren't so blinded by religion.

There is no "overwhelming evidence" for the type of purpose and design Cardinals and other ID'ers intend, found anywhere at all in science. The Cardinal is plain wrong.

You are a religious zealot who thinks design means creation and looks like but isn't must mean it is.

You've addressed non of the points directly I've raised. All you can do is regurgitate repeat - regurgitate repeat -the same old flawed thinking 'cause religion won't let you do anything else
 
to paraphrase the last sentence -


there is evident irony in the fact you don't even understand the quote STU.

you are now arguing with nobel prize winners not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top