No Big Bang Does what to Atheism?

A new theory... welcome to science... where theories abound. But a moot point as atheism is simply a belief that there is no God and has nothing to do with any theories on the origins of the universe.

 

Not at all. I am merely classifying it as an hypothesis.

considering your vast semantic expertise, its seems odd that you would misuse the word "denouncing", let alone confuse the term "scientific theory" with a the more general usage of the word "theory", not to mention conflate both with "hypotheses" .

You don't get it at all despite your claims to the contrary.

 

Where specifically did I make mention of the meaning of 'theory" or 'string theory'. I did not. therefore your comments regarding my understanding are irrelevant.

 

How amusing. Its seems your semantic expertise not only does not encompass context but nothing apart from literal interpretation.

my comment regarding your understanding are naturally irrelevant to you, because its obvious you don't understand in the first place.

 

do you have PROOF of that claim? If you don't intend that someone should take your writings literally, then why not post a disclaimer stating that your writings should not be taken literally?

 

its obvious because if you did actually understand you wouldn't have demanded evidence of how it came about, since the BB only goes as far back as the initial picoseconds of the universe and no farther. If you were actually familiar with the theory, then you wouldn't be asking for evidence of how, since there isn't any, only untestable hypotheses.

As for your literal interpretations, I am not surprised you have trouble understanding , since you seem to ignore context being a critical modifier of any communication.

 

As though the BB itself is testable? Have you ever known of a scientist that has been able to replicate the BB? I bet you have not seen such a thing take place.

Context does mean a lot. That is why I am constantly inquiring so that I am certain of the context. However, it seems that there are a lot of people on this forum who get offended by being questioned about what connotations are being used in their speech.

 

Are you serious? You really don't have a clue how science works and what constitutes a scientific theory. Amazing

No, you are not constantly inquiring about context but you are constantly inquiring about word definitions.
(btw context dictates meaning).

And you flip flop on connotation all the time in your sophistic efforts. sometimes you assume connotations and sometimes you completely ignore them.

Your disingenuous sophistry mostly founded on semantics is transparent to all, except you it seems.

 

I could give a flip less what you think a scientific theory is or how it works. The non-theists on this forum constantly ridicule theists using science as their tool to formulate the ridicule... so, in like turn, I believe it to be the responsibility of those who use that science as a tool to put it to work and PROVE (show PROOF) of their claims.

Oh really? Apple. What is the context of that word? What is the meaning of that word?

Your opinions in your last two statements are so noted and rejected on the basis that they have no scientific support.

 

you mean the theists constantly use pseudo-science which is ridiculed because of its absurdity.

Seems the science isn't enough for you, you need proof of the science.
Again, it demonstrates your incomplete understanding of science, since without supporting evidence (proof) it ain't science. Even theoretical physics uses mathematical proofs, despite the fact that much of it is entirely predicated on such math and remains untestable and/or unobservable.

thanks for providing us all with tickets to your production of theatre of the absurd.

more witless dismissal.

Considering the mountain of empirical evidence available from your thousands of posts, the fact your own words provide the proof that my assertions are true are all the support required.

 

Have you ever considered that in NOT incorporating all of your senses, you and others are denying another part of what you refer to as "reality"?

 

It was never "known", even that show is called "the big bang THEORY". So I still see much compelling evidence that disproves religious myths, and therefore still believe there is no god. You basically started the thread with a straw man argument.

 

Please read this thread, it shows how to break up a quote properly. You can also cut and paste the brackets at the beginning and end of the quote to corresponding locations in the quote. I hope this can help you clarify your opinions.

http://www.minimins.com/forum-technical-support/131077-how-break-up-quote.html

 

That was mighty nice of you to provide such information. And what specifically is the relevance to this thread?

 

No need to get defensive. It is just confusing sometimes when your opinions appear inside of others quotes. It could be taken the wrong way is all.

 

I say 'thank you' in a manner of speaking, and then I ask you what was the relevance of that link. And you refer to that as 'defensive'? Wow. Can you explain what it was in the thank you or the question that gave you the perception of me being 'defensive'? Please cite an example of what you are speaking about?

 

That same old song? And in response to me honestly trying to help you? You really lower the bar in integrity. Are you embarrassed because I had to point that out? Or are you embarrassed because I drew attention to the fact that you have been doing it wrong for so long on here. Once again, you just want argue. Good luck with treating people like poop for trying to help. I hope that works out for you.

 

Only those people who carry in their writings the stench of poop.