Atheism

[jem]

what a troll you are. We already addressed that issue.
In my follow up post I stated it sounded to good to be true and explained you should have checked out the claim.
I figured out he might not have said it before you did.

What a tiny brained little cheap shot you are now attempting. Why do you manifest such a troll nature.



As far as fine tuning of the constants of our universe is concerned. I have produced peer reviewed science on the subject. It was found using a larger hadron collider at CERN. They located the predicted Higgs Boson.

So you are the science denier. I follow the science in matters of science.

He didn't say it.



You'd need to see it in the context that he didn't say it you dope.



And just what exactly is your point in posting links and videos all the time of scientists who do not say they have any science to demonstrate how there IS any fine-tuning or any need for the universe to have a god or a creator or a tuner for it to exist? eh?

I don't post links to science on the subject because there is no science on the subject. The subject is irrelevant to science. What do you find so difficult to get about that?

But You want videos and links ok well here's one. Michio Kaku endorsing the IPCC and the overwhelming evidence for man made global warming and reduction of emissions.

How does that advance your understanding away from being an AGW denier? Your "great minds of science" is telling you something that actually is relevant to science but contrary to your closed minded denial.
Of course it won't change a thing. It's Just something for you to hold another unintelligent ill-considered opinion on.

You keep trying to wedge your religious beliefs into science where much more capable people than you miserably fail, and always will, for simple reasons you clearly are incapable of understanding

 

[jem]

 

[futurecurrents]

There is no God. jem is proof of that.

Either that or God is friggin whacked.

 

[futurecurrents]

You obviously decided a long time ago not to understand what science is so there is no understanding for you Jem.

Why should I be verifying what looks to anyone with half a brain cell to be nonsense.
I've already mentioned there is nothing in Kaku's math or equations or in any one else's nor in any science anywhere that indicates a god or need for one.

There is no such thing as "primitive semi-radius tachyons". There is of course no mention of such things on Kaku's website and there are certainly no papers for it.
This story was supposedly started on a Spanish website a few years ago, later declared a hoax.


But sure enough, thick headed gullible god botherers such as yourself will jump on anything without checking to shout Creator at it.


What a joke.
Constant anger, incessant insults, overbearing self-importance, stupidity and sheer deceit in your posts are reason enough to show how you couldn't have a useful conversation to save your life.

Constant anger, incessant insults, overbearing self-importance, stupidity and sheer deceit in your posts are reason enough to show how you couldn't have a useful conversation to save your life.


Bamm. Nailed it.

 

[Good1]

did faith provide that iphone

bible in one hand and the iphone in the other?

does anyone else see the irony

Not sure your point. I'm saying all physical phenomenon is faith-based, and science is the study of what's reliable within all faith-based phenomenon. This perspective does not come from the bible, although, once, there is an obscure mention of faith causing all "substance". This is why it was also said that faith could move mountains, faith being what puts the mountains there in the first place!

Yes it takes faith to build an iphone.

 

[stu]

As far as fine tuning of the constants of our universe is concerned. I have produced peer reviewed science on the subject. It was found using a larger hadron collider at CERN. They located the predicted Higgs Boson.

No you haven't produced any science ever to show the universe IS fine tuned. There is non so you can't.

I figured out he might not have said it before you did.

Its seems to pro Creator to be true.

I would bet we would need to see it in better context.

You'd need to see it in the context that he didn't say it you dope.

what a troll you are.

What a tiny brained little cheap shot you are

Jem just stop getting so angry when you're wrong.
There is no better context to see it in.
The context always was - he didn't say it.
You didn't check if he'd said it before you posted. Instead of adding "too good to be true" you could have checked it out and not posted even more crap than you already do in the first place
You're just making an idiot of yourself.

and then you said this AFTER you mentioned "too good to be true" and "better context"....

Instead of us have a useful conversation about the science, and you explaining what he may have really meant...

Well he didn't really mean anything did he 'cause he didn't say it and therefore NO science there to have a useful conversation about. Is there!?

Good grief, you don't act this stupid in real life . Do you?

I follow the science in matters of science.

Oh you do?
I see you've "followed the science" with Michio Kaku I asked you to when he's endorsing the IPCC and the overwhelming evidence for man made global warming and reduction of emissions - by ignoring it.

Nah, more like you just "follow the science" by adding speculation, assumption and outright distortion onto stuff that isn't even being said.

 

[stu]

I'm saying all physical phenomenon is faith-based

Receiving the physical phenomenon of being hit over the head with a baseball bat does not manifest itself in any way as faith-based.

I'd suggest some religiously inclined folk really do try far too hard to make faith mean something it obviously doesn't, to the point of ridiculous.

 

[jem]

The funny thing about all you just wrote is that is speculative bullshit... you have not shown he never said it. You also leave out the fact I was reacting to another persons post. Then I looked it up. Then I told you to look it up because you had an argument. Then you turn around and try to make an issue of this as if it was some sort of peer reviewed paper. Its an internet forum you troll and I am not the least bit angry. I am just distracting myself while looking as some stock quotes.

a. you have not posted any links or provided us with any info other than you own bullshit.
b. you therefore have not shown that he denied he ever said it.
c. I showed you video of him explaining something to the effect that the strings in string theory are like music in the mind of God.
d. I realize he stated in the past when he is talking of God he is saying it in the context of an intelligence behind all of this math and harmony and not a personal God.

So he could have made that quote.


2. There is no science showing man made co2 is causing warming on earth. Which is a prerequisites for following the science. You understand that. Until there is science Kaku is just citing the IPCC. Which is like citing al gore. Its not science.

So anytime you wish to post some science showing man made co2 is causing warming on earth... present the science. In the mean time you are just bullshitting your ass off. I have no problem with reducing emissions voluntarily. I have a problem with cap and trade and carbon exchanges run by cronies without there being any science showing many made co2 causes warming. Right now the data we have shows that co2 levels trails change in ocean temps.

 

[Good1]

Receiving the physical phenomenon of being hit over the head with a baseball bat does not manifest itself in any way as faith-based.

I'd suggest some religiously inclined folk really do try far too hard to make faith mean something it obviously doesn't, to the point of ridiculous.

All physical phenomenon, even getting hit over the head with a baseball bat, is faith-based.

First of all, the wood the bat comes from is faith-based. The wood manifests on a planet, the substance of which is faith-based. People walking around on that substance are also faith-based, that is, without faith, no people would appear to exist.

So this faith i'm talking about super-cedes any kind of freedom people think they wield within faith's domain. People exist at it's mercy.

By it's very nature, this dominating faith is malevolent against reality and the knowledge of reality, replacing reality with its own imaginative version. In it's version, reality can be harmed, and to prove it, the malevolent faith mechanism goes about harming all that it manifests and calls "real".

So, is your head real? Then it is now a target for faith's fanged fanaticism. Given enough time, something will knock you out, you and the faith you fail to fathom.

You think you can pick up a baseball bat and knock out reality? Well, that is a faith-based proposition. On the receiving side, you think you can be knocked out? Well, that is also a faith-based proposition.

The only safe space is reality...and to be that reality. Anything else is in danger of faith's foolish fantasies.

 

[jimmiebarton]

stu is a genius, her ta

Not sure your point. I'm saying all physical phenomenon is faith-based, and science is the study of what's reliable within all faith-based phenomenon. This perspective does not come from the bible, although, once, there is an obscure mention of faith causing all "substance". This is why it was also said that faith could move mountains, faith being what puts the mountains there in the first place!

Yes it takes faith to build an iphone.

god didn't give us the iphone, man did.

has many more constrained parts than god.