Suit over national day or prayer dimissed...

[exlude]

8hr? Booooooooooooring

40. Kill me

[Denny]

In that case, I'm going back to my soul sucking HAZMAT recert

8hr? Booooooooooooring

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Where did the stuff that caused the 'big bang' come from? What was there before the 'big bang'?

I think that is what he is trying to get you to answer and that you keep missing.

Stevo

Well they now think that its likely there are multiple universes. So it would actually be a multiverse and not just a "universe". So perhaps they are expanding and collapsing, each time a big bang happening. In some kind of weird, endless cycle. Unfortunately even that leaves... just more questions. Well how did all that get started? Where did the raw materials all come from? Has it just plain "always been"? If that could "always been" then I see no reason something else couldn't "always been" as well. Like some kind of intelligence. So it seems like the more we learn, the more we still don't know.

Very well may be true in terms of creation or universal origins but it doesn't make it a fruitless persuit to study it and try to figure it out.

I agree with that completely. However, I am opposed to the mindless conjecture and closed minded speculation that exists on both sides.

[exlude]

In that case, I'm going back to my soul sucking HAZMAT recert

[Denny]

I just want racrguy to school me on the big bang thinga-ma-jiggy.

[exlude]

Once you figure out that god is not a topic to be scientifically studied, it becomes a much less interesting argument. Science in a pure sense simply does not study the metaphysical. Maybe physical implications of the metaphysical. Now who wants to argue the bible or evolution?

[Denny]

Lol

[exlude]

That is why someone trying to figure it out for himself will fail 100% of the time.

Very well may be true in terms of creation or universal origins but it doesn't make it a fruitless persuit to study it and try to figure it out. Hell, this argument has driven much of today's theoretical physics. But I digress.

[Denny]

Could the existence of matter and conservation of mass not be evidence that it has always existed in some form? It sure isn't inherently an argument for a creator.

Creation theory is a theory afterall, Denny. So of course it involves some beliefs to fill the gaps between evidence. One large diference between the religious and scientific argument is that for one side, beliefs are weaknesses in understanding and something to learn about while for the other side, beliefs are a strengthening affirmation of faith. The point of these arguments isn't about who believes in what, it's about the lack of evidence or contradicting evidence to one side's belief.

That is why someone trying to figure it out for himself will fail 100% of the time.

[exlude]

We we can BELIEVE that matter was just there one day? Remember, I'm trying to see this from an atheist's point of view. SO if they are truely consistant, they could not have any opinion unless it is backed by some factual evidence. If not, the ATHEIST must BELIEVE in something that hasn't been proven (just like me).

And you guys try to label Christians as hypocrites...

Could the existence of matter and conservation of mass not be evidence that it has always existed in some form? It sure isn't inherently an argument for a creator.

Creation theory is a theory afterall, Denny. So of course it involves some beliefs to fill the gaps between evidence. One large diference between the religious and scientific argument is that for one side, beliefs are weaknesses in understanding and something to learn about while for the other side, beliefs are a strengthening affirmation of faith. The point of these arguments isn't about who believes in what, it's about the lack of evidence or contradicting evidence to one side's belief.

[stevo]

You're free to believe what you wish, but you know you're incorrect in your beliefs.

And the big bang theory came about after the Doppler effect was observed in the universe. You see, it's a natural progression of things. We see x, and try to find out what caused it, then we find that out, and then we try to find out what caused that. It's a never ending cycle.

But at this point the conversation has become God v. Science instead of Theism v. Atheism. One can be a theistic scientist.

Where did the stuff that caused the 'big bang' come from? What was there before the 'big bang'?

I think that is what he is trying to get you to answer and that you keep missing.

Stevo

[YALE]

Everybody's allowed to be wrong, dude. I think the danger lies in letting being right get in the way of conducting yourself honorably. The same logic I applied to your opinion could be applied to his. I still love y'all both like family members we don't talk about at thanksgiving.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Fuck it, I'll try again. The plaintiff is an atheist, but all atheists aren't being represented by this suit, so whatever the complaint is against the plaintiff's line of reasoning, they don't automatically apply to that of all atheists. I can give you a description of a Venn diagram if you want, but the gist is this: All A's are B's, but not all B's are A's. Draw a big circle, then a smaller one inside, mark the little one, "A," and the big one, "B." "A," represents any singular atheist, which for the purposes of this argument, we'll make the plaintiff. "B," represents all atheists everywhere. See? They have their view of what it means to not believe in god, and they share that lack of belief with all other non-believers, but they don't represent all non-believers by simply proclaiming disbelief, or even proclaiming that they speak for all non-believers. That would be like the Pope's belief that he speaks for all theists holding water. Any one theist doesn't represent all of them.

Uh.. ok the.. plaintiff is the... what now? I assume your talking about the people who were the subject of the original post. So, you should know I'm not like a lawyer or anything. And I see what you're saying now though. They don't represent all atheists. Fair enough. So it seems that I need to clarify that I'm only actually attacking the blatantly retarded atheists, just the same way I'd attack the blatantly retarded religious zealots. Ok yeah, so you're one of the smart ones. But you have to look at guys like racecarjackoff. Just look at his last post to denny. He says something about "Just know that your beliefs in the magical man in the sky are incorrect" or something like that. When for all he knows, that magical man in the sky is staring at the back of his head right now. He just can't seem to grasp the concept that his "science" fully accepts the possibility of a god, it just wants proof. And that according to science a god would not be "magic" or "supernatural". It would be natural, if proven.

So now, we come to this. He represents a very large portion of atheists. I realize that there are actually different types of atheists, but going by the literal definition of an atheists, it occurs to me that if you get down to it, technically, there is only one type. So perhaps another term better describes the "atheists" that you would represent. On the other hand though, racecardickhole is what he appears to hate. Its really sad.

[YALE]

You boys play nice, now.

[Denny]

You're free to believe what you wish, but you know you're incorrect in your beliefs.

And the big bang theory came about after the Doppler effect was observed in the universe. You see, it's a natural progression of things. We see x, and try to find out what caused it, then we find that out, and then we try to find out what caused that. It's a never ending cycle.

But at this point the conversation has become God v. Science instead of Theism v. Atheism. One can be a theistic scientist.

I'm just going to do one last facepalm and go on my merry way. Jeez...