Sad thing that you think if somebody take part in an open discussion, than he is militant. Thats why the first Amendment of the US Constitution were written....
I think you don't get my point.
People who care about other people's religions are weirdos and this thread is full of these kind of people. Who cares if you are atheist or religious? It is your own business, there is no right or wrong. I think it is very funny that you refer to the first amendment of the constitution, because this whole thread consists of people arguing that other people's opinion about an entirely subjective matter is wrong. You can't prove anything about the existence or non-existence of god. All you want is that the people who don't share your opinion shut up (because otherwise there is NOTHING to discuss about), so I think you are the one who doesn't really understand the constitution of the United States. Because freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have to enforce your opinion on other people if they don't agree.
And with that I'll stop posting in this thread after two probably completely pointless submissions (because I already know that almost everyone posting in this thread is pretty ignorant and doesn't share my opinion). I just hope this thread vanishes from the front page at some point :)
Actually, there is a right and wrong. You can't use religion to justify pedophilia like Jeff Warren; or use religion to justify murdering homosexuals; or use religion to justify bombing another religious sect; or use religion to force people to commit suicide like Jim Jones; etc. Likewise, you can't use science to justify eugenics; or use science to justify forcing people to endure experiments; etc.
Beware: if you feel it that I am forcing anything on you, than dont read further.
I do care about what people think. Sry but I am to kind and I want the people to see the world from a better a perspective, but if you dont want to so, you can always just stop reading. I wont judge you by your beliefs after all somebody had to tell you your religion or you had to read it from somewhere, its not your fault (by your words, somebody had to enforce it on you).
Wow judge me by my avatar, I think its pretty awesome.
The links just suggest that the more educated you are the less chance you are believing in God. Which you dont want to accept.
About quantum physics, as its mostly theoretical work and its about the building blocks of the universe, it easily goes into discussion about the possibility of god. So Its easy determine which scientist is theist or not....
Yeah Sagan was agnostic, my mistake, Feynman was agnostic too. (agnostic atheist would be better word for them)
I don't see how "the more educated you are the less chance you are believing in God," is important. It might be true, but there's no evidence to put the facts either way, meaning we don't know if education causes atheism or if atheists just like to have a higher level of education. It could be explained by the general ways of thinking, for example, having a higher possession of knowledge might make one less likely to be willing to accept there is One infinitely more intelligent. Intelligence generally isn't related to education anyway. Don't take that the wrong way now, I know there's a correlation between the two. And it certainly doesn't mean that if I were to suddenly become an atheist, my intelligence and level of education would go up. But again, its not important.
I don't think there's a simple answer as to whether religion is bad or not. I mean, the right religions and views could easily motivate someone to live a righteous life, rather than being motivated by just doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. I think the only sure conclusion of that topic would be that bad religions and views are bad and unhealthy, and good religions and views are good and healthy. Keep in mind, if there is a God, then it doesn't really matter anyway.
I don't see how "the more educated you are the less chance you are believing in God," is important. It might be true, but there's no evidence to put the facts either way, meaning we don't know if education causes atheism or if atheists just like to have a higher level of education.
I don't think you really thought this through. There's plenty of evidence for such things. Just, like a usual creationist, you've not looked.
Scientist work like Clicks in highschool, if you don't agree the rest, you are not a "REAL" scientist.... its funny though Einstein and newton both refused the title of Atheism calling it idiotic. hmm both were seen as Outcast until after their death.
Scientist work like Clicks in highschool, if you don't agree the rest, you are not a "REAL" scientist.... its funny though Einstein and newton both refused the title of Atheism calling it idiotic. hmm both were seen as Outcast until after their death.
I wrote a fancy reply explaining the reasons why Einstein ostracized himself due to his disagreements with quantum mechanics and his unfinished theory of everything, but then realised I'm wasting my time with you.
Call science whatever you like, but fact of the matter is that;
So is there any reason as to why Alchemy Couldn't work, if Science is correct then Alchemy is VERY possible, but we would have to change the metals on a molecular level Which would have been impossible for back then and impossible now, and who is to say Einstein was wrong?
Because an element's physical and chemical properties are inherent to it's atomic structure (especially the number of protons). You cannot change an element to another element through chemical and physical processes (the DEFINITON OF ALCHEMY). You can only convert one element to another element through fission or fusion, both processes that alter an element's atomic number; that's not the definition of alchemy; they're called NUCLEAR processes.
Physicists say that Einstein was incorrect. Einstein believed that quantum properties were fixed and could not change. Experiments have shown that when you alter the properties of an entangled particle, it's partner instantly changes. Hopefully, that explanation is laymen enough for you to understand. If you don't understand, but are still curious, then you can use the internet to search for more detailed explanations. If you lack the curiosity, then...well...
They proved he was wrong. Anyway the Bohr–Einstein debates are pretty awesome on the subject.
Actually here is the video when he was first provided with evidence...:
(I love that how happily they go in and how sadly they come out)
More and more scientist today believe that there is no unified theory or if its one out there we will never will be able to find it or prove it. (sad Einstein)
There's more examples, but you can find those yourself.
I guess you too dont read the links you post.
Within the atheists’ nest that rules the NAS, empirical evidence is irrelevant. In both fields, their “findings” will continue to bolster their atheist religion and their self-interest, not the interests of true science, or of the American people.
Any case, this argument of a group of scientists from `NAS`(The organisation with an agenda, as your link and so many places describes it) having a high % of atheists still has no relevance on the topic. If they were all christian, does that prove there is a God?, No, Why should you believe that?, but neither would I appeal such silly logic on you if that were the case.
And there is no such thing as `elite` scientists. Science is progressive and builds on existing knowledge.
I read in the link that these guys expertise in Global warming. If you still haven`t caught up with having realized that Global warming is the biggest hoax theory yet, then there is still a lot you have to learn.
You question nothing and accept things at face value to fit your rose-tinted outlook on life. Unaware of corrupt agendas such as the US Federal Reserve Bank, etc.
Rose-tinted world man.
Wow judge me by my avatar, I think its pretty awesome.
The links just suggest that the more educated you are the less chance you are believing in God. Which you dont want to accept.
About quantum physics, as its mostly theoretical work and its about the building blocks of the universe, it easily goes into discussion about the possibility of god. So Its easy determine which scientist is theist or not....
Yeah Sagan was agnostic, my mistake, Feynman was agnostic too. (agnostic atheist would be better word for them)
I did apologize. I dont know, that avatar of yours..;x
Read your links again, you still fail to understand it. The last link was silly though, very old, and it mentioned `leading` scientists but what leading scientists?, its so vague and makes no sense. But read over your first two links. The more educated you are in science, the easier it is to appreciate and understand the existence of a Creator. Dont go making up BS like you do with links that dont support your argument(The links are counter-argumentative to you!!).
Yea, they were agnostic. Not agnostic `atheists` as you want to invent it, but just agnostic.
I guess you too dont read the links you post. If you did, you would be humiliated from your own stupidity.
Within the atheists’ nest that rules the NAS, empirical evidence is irrelevant. In both fields, their “findings” will continue to bolster their atheist religion and their self-interest, not the interests of true science, or of the American people.
Any case, this argument of a group of scientists from `NAS`(The organisation with an agenda, as your link and so many places describes it) having a high % of atheists still has no relevance on the topic.
I deliberately picked a creationist website for the statistic because if I linked an atheist or neutral source, people would get up in arms about the stat being biased. I thought that would've been obvious really.
If they were all christian, does that prove there is a God?, No, Why should you believe that?, but neither would I appeal such silly logic on you if that were the case.
We were talking about "Are smart people typically atheistic?". You already knew that was our current sub-topic. You've even talked on it in prior posts.
I read in the link that these guys expertise in Global warming. If you still haven`t caught up with having realized that Global warming is the biggest hoax theory yet, then there is still a lot you have to learn.
They don't specialise in anything. It's an organisation of America's best scientists from all fields.
Also, if you believe global warming is a hoax, you're free to evaluate the evidence and research papers yourself and come to your own conclusion. However, like a typical creationist, you've not even looked.
That's the beauty of science; it's completely open and if you find a repeatable flaw in a particular theory or hypothesis, it is junked. Yes, this goes for evolution too. If you find a independently verifiable, testable scenario where evolution breaks down, you will be famous for it. Immediately.
You question nothing and accept things at face value to fit your rose-tinted outlook on life. Unaware of corrupt agendas such as the US Federal Reserve Bank, etc.
Rose-tinted world man.
Ah, tinfoil hat time.
Since that was a long, boring post, here are some soundbites;
We are on the verge of becoming a planetary civilisation where all nations and peoples are connected by close trade, communication and ideas.
I read in the link that these guys expertise in Global warming. If you still haven`t caught up with having realized that Global warming is the biggest hoax theory yet, then there is still a lot you have to learn.
You question nothing and accept things at face value to fit your rose-tinted outlook on life. Unaware of corrupt agendas such as the US Federal Reserve Bank, etc.
Rose-tinted world man.
You should have stated that you are an Alex Jones fun (+ all those other conspiracy mad people).
Its a sad thing that some people cant handle too much information and they have to claim that some evil human force is behind of the things. (rather than the nature of humans.)
I deliberately picked a creationist website for the statistic because if I linked an atheist or neutral source, people would get up in arms about the stat being biased. I thought that would've been obvious really.
We were talking about "Are smart people typically atheistic?". You already knew that was our current sub-topic. You've even talked on it in prior posts.
They don't specialise in anything. It's an organisation of America's best scientists from all fields.
Also, if you believe global warming is a hoax, you're free to evaluate the evidence and research papers yourself and come to your own conclusion. However, like a typical creationist, you've not even looked.
That's the beauty of science; it's completely open and if you find a repeatable flaw in a particular theory or hypothesis, it is junked. Yes, this goes for evolution too. If you find a independently verifiable, testable scenario where evolution breaks down, you will be famous for it. Immediately.
Since that was a long, boring post, here are some soundbites;
We are on the verge of becoming a planetary civilisation where all nations and peoples are connected by close trade, communication and ideas.
Religion divides that. It will die.
We were talking about "Are smart people typically atheistic?". You already knew that was our current sub-topic. You've even talked on it in prior posts.
You would qualify `smart` belonging to them that are in scientific fields? Is that not what the topic was erring on?.
So after you actually read the article and the points made in it, you now resort to just labeling it a `creationist` website and dismiss whats being presented. Sad, but nice try on that lame excuse?.
The bold highlighted. Again, rose tinted world. If that were the case, then human evolution should be junked as nothing more than a pseudo science. In every area of life, there are certain people up there that call the shots, approve this/that, etc. You know, the `big guns`. Are human motives based on truth and the goodwill of mankind? hardly!. Yes, Satan controls the world, and feeds it through the media and through all his agents(these so called false `scientists` that promote half truths and lies)
Wake up. Open your eyes. Understand and learn. Though more and more scientists are rejecting the theory, the mainstream media(and that retarded Al`gore) and the presumed `general consensus` is still propagating and in favor of this lie.
”Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done.”
Scientists falsifying evidence? Heresy you say?. Reality on the contrary!. This also extends to your terrible/dirty theory of human evolution.
I agree with you when you say Science is beautiful, indeed so. The truth is likewise the same. Inflexible and absolute. But, by all means, be an ignoramus. You unknowingly fulfill bible scripture and thus it shall be so.
I utterly detest when an atheist thinks he knows anything about science and attempts to use it in an half-effort approach to support his illogical belief/religion. As I said, continue fulfilling the Word of God in your ways.
@Hookah604: Go
They were agnostic. Not agnostic atheists(which is funny by the way, but never-mind that). By their own admission. Do you understand?. You destroy yourself with your own links, really.
I'll make a better reply later, but in regards to global warming;
Earth's temperature is rising. It's really difficult to ignore that. It's really irrefutable. Temperature rises aren't really something the "big guns" can fake. You can test it yourself with a thermometer over the past few decades.
The real question is "Is it due to human activity?".
Now, you're a creationist. You're familiar with pascal's wager.
Tell me, ignoring all evidence and focusing purely on common sense, is it safer to proceed as if it IS DUE to human activity, or IGNORE IT?
I think you don't get my point.
People who care about other people's religions are weirdos and this thread is full of these kind of people. Who cares if you are atheist or religious? It is your own business, there is no right or wrong. I think it is very funny that you refer to the first amendment of the constitution, because this whole thread consists of people arguing that other people's opinion about an entirely subjective matter is wrong. You can't prove anything about the existence or non-existence of god. All you want is that the people who don't share your opinion shut up (because otherwise there is NOTHING to discuss about), so I think you are the one who doesn't really understand the constitution of the United States. Because freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have to enforce your opinion on other people if they don't agree.
And with that I'll stop posting in this thread after two probably completely pointless submissions (because I already know that almost everyone posting in this thread is pretty ignorant and doesn't share my opinion). I just hope this thread vanishes from the front page at some point :)
People who care about people who care about other people's religions are even bigger weirdos! :P
@Bommes: Go
Actually, there is a right and wrong. You can't use religion to justify pedophilia like Jeff Warren; or use religion to justify murdering homosexuals; or use religion to justify bombing another religious sect; or use religion to force people to commit suicide like Jim Jones; etc. Likewise, you can't use science to justify eugenics; or use science to justify forcing people to endure experiments; etc.
@Bommes: Go
Beware: if you feel it that I am forcing anything on you, than dont read further.
I do care about what people think. Sry but I am to kind and I want the people to see the world from a better a perspective, but if you dont want to so, you can always just stop reading. I wont judge you by your beliefs after all somebody had to tell you your religion or you had to read it from somewhere, its not your fault (by your words, somebody had to enforce it on you).
@EternalWraith: Go
Wow judge me by my avatar, I think its pretty awesome.
The links just suggest that the more educated you are the less chance you are believing in God. Which you dont want to accept.
About quantum physics, as its mostly theoretical work and its about the building blocks of the universe, it easily goes into discussion about the possibility of god. So Its easy determine which scientist is theist or not....
Yeah Sagan was agnostic, my mistake, Feynman was agnostic too. (agnostic atheist would be better word for them)
I don't see how "the more educated you are the less chance you are believing in God," is important. It might be true, but there's no evidence to put the facts either way, meaning we don't know if education causes atheism or if atheists just like to have a higher level of education. It could be explained by the general ways of thinking, for example, having a higher possession of knowledge might make one less likely to be willing to accept there is One infinitely more intelligent. Intelligence generally isn't related to education anyway. Don't take that the wrong way now, I know there's a correlation between the two. And it certainly doesn't mean that if I were to suddenly become an atheist, my intelligence and level of education would go up. But again, its not important.
I don't think there's a simple answer as to whether religion is bad or not. I mean, the right religions and views could easily motivate someone to live a righteous life, rather than being motivated by just doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. I think the only sure conclusion of that topic would be that bad religions and views are bad and unhealthy, and good religions and views are good and healthy. Keep in mind, if there is a God, then it doesn't really matter anyway.
I don't think you really thought this through. There's plenty of evidence for such things. Just, like a usual creationist, you've not looked.
93% of your elite scientists are atheists.
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/06/17/the-atheistdominated-national-academy-of-sciences/
There's more examples, but you can find those yourself.
@Eiviyn: Go
Still don't see how its important.
@Eiviyn: Go
Scientist work like Clicks in highschool, if you don't agree the rest, you are not a "REAL" scientist.... its funny though Einstein and newton both refused the title of Atheism calling it idiotic. hmm both were seen as Outcast until after their death.
I wrote a fancy reply explaining the reasons why Einstein ostracized himself due to his disagreements with quantum mechanics and his unfinished theory of everything, but then realised I'm wasting my time with you.
Call science whatever you like, but fact of the matter is that;
@Bilxor: Go
Worm food is my present belief.
@Taintedwisp: Go
Newton also believed in alchemy and Einstein also rejected quantum entanglement.
@FDFederation: Go
So is there any reason as to why Alchemy Couldn't work, if Science is correct then Alchemy is VERY possible, but we would have to change the metals on a molecular level Which would have been impossible for back then and impossible now, and who is to say Einstein was wrong?
@Taintedwisp: Go
Because an element's physical and chemical properties are inherent to it's atomic structure (especially the number of protons). You cannot change an element to another element through chemical and physical processes (the DEFINITON OF ALCHEMY). You can only convert one element to another element through fission or fusion, both processes that alter an element's atomic number; that's not the definition of alchemy; they're called NUCLEAR processes.
Physicists say that Einstein was incorrect. Einstein believed that quantum properties were fixed and could not change. Experiments have shown that when you alter the properties of an entangled particle, it's partner instantly changes. Hopefully, that explanation is laymen enough for you to understand. If you don't understand, but are still curious, then you can use the internet to search for more detailed explanations. If you lack the curiosity, then...well...
They proved he was wrong. Anyway the Bohr–Einstein debates are pretty awesome on the subject.
Actually here is the video when he was first provided with evidence...:
(I love that how happily they go in and how sadly they come out)
More and more scientist today believe that there is no unified theory or if its one out there we will never will be able to find it or prove it. (sad Einstein)
I guess you too dont read the links you post.
Within the atheists’ nest that rules the NAS, empirical evidence is irrelevant. In both fields, their “findings” will continue to bolster their atheist religion and their self-interest, not the interests of true science, or of the American people.
Any case, this argument of a group of scientists from `NAS`(The organisation with an agenda, as your link and so many places describes it) having a high % of atheists still has no relevance on the topic. If they were all christian, does that prove there is a God?, No, Why should you believe that?, but neither would I appeal such silly logic on you if that were the case.
And there is no such thing as `elite` scientists. Science is progressive and builds on existing knowledge.
I read in the link that these guys expertise in Global warming. If you still haven`t caught up with having realized that Global warming is the biggest hoax theory yet, then there is still a lot you have to learn.
You question nothing and accept things at face value to fit your rose-tinted outlook on life. Unaware of corrupt agendas such as the US Federal Reserve Bank, etc.
Rose-tinted world man.
I did apologize. I dont know, that avatar of yours..;x
Read your links again, you still fail to understand it. The last link was silly though, very old, and it mentioned `leading` scientists but what leading scientists?, its so vague and makes no sense. But read over your first two links. The more educated you are in science, the easier it is to appreciate and understand the existence of a Creator. Dont go making up BS like you do with links that dont support your argument(The links are counter-argumentative to you!!).
Yea, they were agnostic. Not agnostic `atheists` as you want to invent it, but just agnostic.
I deliberately picked a creationist website for the statistic because if I linked an atheist or neutral source, people would get up in arms about the stat being biased. I thought that would've been obvious really.
We were talking about "Are smart people typically atheistic?". You already knew that was our current sub-topic. You've even talked on it in prior posts.
I don't think elite means what you think it means.
They don't specialise in anything. It's an organisation of America's best scientists from all fields.
Also, if you believe global warming is a hoax, you're free to evaluate the evidence and research papers yourself and come to your own conclusion. However, like a typical creationist, you've not even looked.
That's the beauty of science; it's completely open and if you find a repeatable flaw in a particular theory or hypothesis, it is junked. Yes, this goes for evolution too. If you find a independently verifiable, testable scenario where evolution breaks down, you will be famous for it. Immediately.
Ah, tinfoil hat time.
Since that was a long, boring post, here are some soundbites;
We are on the verge of becoming a planetary civilisation where all nations and peoples are connected by close trade, communication and ideas.
Religion divides that. It will die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
From the 2200 members of the NAS group, 200 are Nobel price winners.
Sad thing you cant understand simple statistics, which my links provided. This may clear the mess up in your mind: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
You should have stated that you are an Alex Jones fun (+ all those other conspiracy mad people).
Its a sad thing that some people cant handle too much information and they have to claim that some evil human force is behind of the things. (rather than the nature of humans.)
We were talking about "Are smart people typically atheistic?". You already knew that was our current sub-topic. You've even talked on it in prior posts.
You would qualify `smart` belonging to them that are in scientific fields? Is that not what the topic was erring on?.
So after you actually read the article and the points made in it, you now resort to just labeling it a `creationist` website and dismiss whats being presented. Sad, but nice try on that lame excuse?.
The bold highlighted. Again, rose tinted world. If that were the case, then human evolution should be junked as nothing more than a pseudo science. In every area of life, there are certain people up there that call the shots, approve this/that, etc. You know, the `big guns`. Are human motives based on truth and the goodwill of mankind? hardly!. Yes, Satan controls the world, and feeds it through the media and through all his agents(these so called false `scientists` that promote half truths and lies)
As for global warming:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
Wake up. Open your eyes. Understand and learn. Though more and more scientists are rejecting the theory, the mainstream media(and that retarded Al`gore) and the presumed `general consensus` is still propagating and in favor of this lie.
”Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done.”
Scientists falsifying evidence? Heresy you say?. Reality on the contrary!. This also extends to your terrible/dirty theory of human evolution.
I agree with you when you say Science is beautiful, indeed so. The truth is likewise the same. Inflexible and absolute. But, by all means, be an ignoramus. You unknowingly fulfill bible scripture and thus it shall be so.
I utterly detest when an atheist thinks he knows anything about science and attempts to use it in an half-effort approach to support his illogical belief/religion. As I said, continue fulfilling the Word of God in your ways.
@Hookah604: Go They were agnostic. Not agnostic atheists(which is funny by the way, but never-mind that). By their own admission. Do you understand?. You destroy yourself with your own links, really.
I'll make a better reply later, but in regards to global warming;
Earth's temperature is rising. It's really difficult to ignore that. It's really irrefutable. Temperature rises aren't really something the "big guns" can fake. You can test it yourself with a thermometer over the past few decades.
The real question is "Is it due to human activity?".
Now, you're a creationist. You're familiar with pascal's wager.
Tell me, ignoring all evidence and focusing purely on common sense, is it safer to proceed as if it IS DUE to human activity, or IGNORE IT?
@EternalWraith: Go
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Global+warming