Even special relativity after the first release was later improved/changed to general relativity after many years of hard work/ further research since Einstein himself knew it was Not Good "Enough" from the beginning!
Last edited:
Atheism
- Thread starter nursebee
- Start date
Even special relativity after the first release was later improved/changed to general relativity after many years of hard work/ further research since Einstein himself knew it was Not Good "Enough" from the beginning!
The bible is nothing but letters of the past!
You're saying bible people who "need to find from religious writings/thinking/sayings/traditions their relevance in modern life"....
....are fundamentalists!
It's noticeable how the religious like yourself do tend to talk in ever diminishing self-contradicting circles.
Looking forward positively and gracefully without resorting to jesus,superstition and ....well....the nonsense of religion, is just so much more honest and dignified I suggest.
Guessing, particularly when involving bias or personal, does not help objective analysis! I think.
At least Jesus was not a religious fundamentalist, as far as I see. Of course, I could be very wrong! Just 2 cents!
once again we see many of the lefties on this site do not understand the difference between faith and fact.
believing in the multi verse or other universes takes faith
believing that life evolved from non life takes faith
believing that man made co2 is warming the earth takes faith.
why... because there is no peer reviewed science showing a multiverse or that life evolved from non life or that man made co2 causes warming.
similarly believing the bible is the inspired word of God takes faith.
believing Jesus is God takes faith. (by the way your statement heavily edited needs to be established and inconsistent has not really been established either)
before you can argue we are skeptical of peer reviewed science...
you need to produce some to support your arguments.
We are not necessarily skeptical of science we are skeptical that many on your team pretend your beliefs are scientific in the absence of peer reviewed science.
believing in the multi verse or other universes takes faith
believing that life evolved from non life takes faith
believing that man made co2 is warming the earth takes faith.
why... because there is no peer reviewed science showing a multiverse or that life evolved from non life or that man made co2 causes warming.
similarly believing the bible is the inspired word of God takes faith.
believing Jesus is God takes faith. (by the way your statement heavily edited needs to be established and inconsistent has not really been established either)
before you can argue we are skeptical of peer reviewed science...
you need to produce some to support your arguments.
We are not necessarily skeptical of science we are skeptical that many on your team pretend your beliefs are scientific in the absence of peer reviewed science.
Last edited:
If it is science, then there is no belief or need for faith in
'the multi verse or other universes,
that life evolved from non life,
that man made co2 is warming the earth'.
No faith in them if it is science. The physics, the math, the facts, ie the science, points to their presence.
It takes blind faith, usually blind religious faith, to refuse deny and feign the knowledge brought to everything through science.
'the multi verse or other universes,
that life evolved from non life,
that man made co2 is warming the earth'.
No faith in them if it is science. The physics, the math, the facts, ie the science, points to their presence.
It takes blind faith, usually blind religious faith, to refuse deny and feign the knowledge brought to everything through science.
What's in a name? That which is called a Bible by any other name would sound the same.
Apocrypha; written by man, edited by man and then called the Bible by man, in the name of god.
And Goldilocks never existed either, but no one in their right mind would say it's bogus argument to talk about her in anything else but The Three Bears.
Therefore, rejecting the existence of God is also illogical/ meaningless, basically!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Non-Apocalypse
1. typical sophistry from a leftist drone.
2. I am the one supporting real science you are the troll acting as if something is scientific when it is really just a collection of ideas.
a. There is no scientific proof of a multiverse. As penrose said M theory is a collect of ideas. We don't know even one other universe exists.
b. we don't even have a complete plausible pathway showing how life could have evolved from non life.
c. co2 is also a coolant. NASA experiments show it to be a thermostat and the data shows warming and cooling lead co2 levels up an down. So while I too think co2 could amplify natural warming and cooling... there is zero peer reviewed science saying man made co2 is causing warming now.
You can jump up and down and point to false papers about 75 out 77 out of 10,000 being 97 percent or you can give us a link to Powells database... which I then show is a wrong because there are 1350 peer reveewed papers which are skeptical but you will not find any science saying man made co2 causes warming.
You are full of shit on so many levels...and you may not even realize it.
Here is a tip...
see if Stu presents a link to real science proving other universes or life evolving from non life or man made co2 causes warming.
or...
see if he just bullshits and trolls his ass off as usual.
2. I am the one supporting real science you are the troll acting as if something is scientific when it is really just a collection of ideas.
a. There is no scientific proof of a multiverse. As penrose said M theory is a collect of ideas. We don't know even one other universe exists.
b. we don't even have a complete plausible pathway showing how life could have evolved from non life.
c. co2 is also a coolant. NASA experiments show it to be a thermostat and the data shows warming and cooling lead co2 levels up an down. So while I too think co2 could amplify natural warming and cooling... there is zero peer reviewed science saying man made co2 is causing warming now.
You can jump up and down and point to false papers about 75 out 77 out of 10,000 being 97 percent or you can give us a link to Powells database... which I then show is a wrong because there are 1350 peer reveewed papers which are skeptical but you will not find any science saying man made co2 causes warming.
You are full of shit on so many levels...and you may not even realize it.
Here is a tip...
see if Stu presents a link to real science proving other universes or life evolving from non life or man made co2 causes warming.
or...
see if he just bullshits and trolls his ass off as usual.