Do Atheists Like Science that Doesn't Suit their Agenda?

Then from where I sit, your brand of spiritual thought is nothing less than fundamentally sick.

A bridge is not going to be built here.

 

Again, based upon your choice of philosophy it is reasonable for me to expect you to say that my "brand of spiritual thought is nothing less than fundamentally sick."... why??? As I stated before... your philosophy will reject anything pertaining to spiritualism or spirituality or God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit.

BTW: No one has mentioned building bridges other than you.

 

As I just said, I do not outright reject spiritualism;

My philosophy will in fact reject any sort of senseless violence when an easy alternative is readily available. Any philosophy that justifies the deaths of innocents, children and infants included, is fundamentally sick. People that subscribe to such reasoning probably should not be trusted due to their blatant acceptance of such senseless violence.

 

Then in essence, you should be in a state of mind where you do not trust scientists. Why? Because those scientists, at the behest of government(s) continue their creative endeavors that support those acts of senseless violence. Of course those scientists are paid well for their creative services, therefore, from the perspective of those scientists, those acts of creation which contribute to the acts of senseless violence are justified by their rationalization.

The black plague that swept through Europe was not an act of mankind (at least not directly an act of mankind), but rather an act of Nature. Therefore, you should also be rejecting the philosophy of those that serve 'nature' and support her activities. Tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. all acts of nature which in turn kill many thousands of innocent people. Be angry with Mother Nature. Curse mother nature.... and those that worship her (condone her activities).

So, it looks like you should be just about ready to conclude that the whole population of the world cannot be trusted because in one sense of the word or another, they all will justify, rationalize, or otherwise support the senseless violence that subsequently kill many thousands of innocents.

BTW: Do you perhaps pay taxes?

 

They build weapons for use against another opposing force, this is not the same as ordering the Jews to kill children and infants.

Nature is not a conscience being, your point is irrelevant. A person would have to be foolish to trust something like nature, I remember just two weeks ago practically running off of a 14,020 foot peak because of the looming thunderstorm that was rapidly approaching the peak. I also remember carrying a .45ACP handgun due to my distrust in predatory animals as well. You point is a non-point.

A person who rationalizes monstrous acts in the name of god are far less trustworthy than whose who condemn such violence.

Yes, don't we all?

 

Who issued the orders to the Jews to kill children and infants? According to the records.... remember... people as well as historical documents can be seen as passing forward a lie.

Is 'evolution' a part of 'Nature'? Why, then do so many place a high degree of trust in the 'theory of evolution'? It is nature based.

No argument. I for one would question the entity telling me to commit such an act. So far, no such entity has approached me with such a demand or order. So your point is also irrelevant with regard to me as an individual being.

No! ALL do not pay taxes. But for the point you are making, I would say that all who do pay taxes and does not publicly and officially protest the manner in which some of that tax money is being spent (funding the creation of wmd's) would in effect be acquiescing (giving silent consent) to those acts.

 

No! Some person reported that God had told him this or that or another thing. Now, the question revolves around was the thing that was told to the people a lie, the truth, a misrepresentation, or what?

Your analogies are in fact silly, as I do not even have a hat in my immediate physical possession at the moment. At any rate, I find it amazing that you are willing to concede that evolution is not to be trusted. Just my personal astonishment...

Ah! so you are going to shoot bees with a M&P45? Is that/those bee/bees sitting still or are they in flight?

Well, your comment above shows how serious you were with the request and also shows how you will set bait for some unsuspecting person to grab hold of.

Nor does it help yours. For yours to hold any water at all, you first have to acknowledge the existence of God, otherwise you are asking things pertaining to some imaginary creature in YOUR mind.

 

Anyway, back to the topic...

The only reason for atheists to doubt the truth of the Big Bang Theory is because it postulates a universe with a beginning and an end. In other words, it makes theism more likely than atheism.

Unless you can come up with other reasons for doubts, and show your scientific proofs for them.

 

Yep, atheists do it all the time.

 

You cannot build a bridge to a man who is consumed by hate and anger.

Bridges between people require two sides. Whose side is it that is failing?

 

Forum rules don't allow us to talk about people by name. I've gotten in trouble for that on here in the past. But I will say this; a lot of the left on this forum (which is predominantly but not exclusively atheist) certainly doesn't seem all that eager to accept science when it points to things like gender differences. If it threatens the narrative that men and women are the same, suddenly science isn't a credible source for information anymore.

 

And you have spelled out rules about when violence is necessary and when it is not?

I have asked you repeatedly about the context you continuously site in ignorance: the OT, deuteronomy, etc.

Tribal warfare, defense of your home, alternatives for women and children left behind in the aftermath of war.

All you offer is self righteous sanctimony, constant criticism of someone who will never face anything difficult or dangerous.

In sharp contrast? Where is your concern for FARC violence today? The Narco-war on Southern border, etc. etc. etc.

Nope, you are stuck on a minor war from thousands of years ago, ignoring massive violence today ... because you are against senseless violence? Or because you have rationalized your anger toward God.

I am guessing you believe in God, you are just a spoiled child who is wondering why God hasn't given you a new red sports car.

 

I've not seen any atheist deny the Big bang, but well.

 

I have. I have seen several atheists claim the big bang was not an explosion. Usually, something else, once it was merely an expansion - linked me to a specific piece of NASA, hidden deep within the site - bypassing everything else NASA had to say about the event while chastizing both myself and others about being stupid for denying NASA - idiots!

So, when you bypass 99.9% of accepted sceince to list a single source that is making a point about the subsequent expansion .... yeah, I would say that is a pretty deliberate misrepresentation of science.

Just like I would point to all the atheists who emphatically state that the Big Bang disroves God. Not one of tehm has been able to back it with actual science. Does that sound like a claim that sceince, or atheists who do not believe in God, siezing upon 'science' to justify their preconceptions without study? Analysis? Skepticism?

And how many took Stephen Hawkins the universe farted into existence as gospel as well? As if Stephen Hawkings saying, well, geez guys ... imbues it with proof?

No, there are many atheists who claim the mantel of science, few who can actually hold that mantel.

 

Not expansion or explosion. The term is "inflation". The rest of your empty rant is duplicity personified and has no basis in fact, just your fevered imagination.

 

Oh the irony.

ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!

 

Even if the universe has a beginning and end (which is a possibility), that still does not point to a supernatural creator or make theism more likely.

More "god of the gaps".

 

Your book says that god told the Jews to slaughter innocents, so I see you are questioning that.

That is why a I carry an epipen in my first aid kit, an inherent distrust of nature's bees. I see that you are twisting what I said to fit your argument, however it is rather obvious what I meant.

I disagree, for my argument to hold water I have to realize that killing innocents is a distasteful act. An absolutely unforgivable act if a being possesses the ability to refrain from such unnecessary loss of life.

Belief is god is irrelevant, I can tell you for the sake of argument that I believe in a god. A god that condemns such senseless death. Which is not different from I am saying now from an atheistic perspective.

 

My side obviously. It is difficult to glorify the deaths of innocents.

You continuously ignore the obvious. The violence today is the result of man. A far from perfect being. My issue is not so much that people died thousands of years ago, but that people today justify such acts. It is concerning. They probably should not even have children, or posses firearms.

Nah, sports cars are for uninteresting people with tiny dicks.

 

Oh Well... Most Atheists will assume the attitude of non-acceptance of the Bible as being the Word of God because "It was written by other men" not God. The history of this forum will bear witness to what I have just stated. Now who wrote the Bible, man or God? Did God say those things or did some nomad make up the story?

Yes it is obvious what you meant. It meant that if attacked or threatened by bears, or lions, or bees you will make use of your M&P45. I was not twisting anything, but rather curious about your ability with that weapon. Can you down a bee that is in flight with that weapon? Such 'Billy the Kid' experts are very rare today.

Changing the name of God to 'a being' does not alter the fact that the entity that you refer to as "a being [previously refered to as God]" would still have to exist to eliminate the FACT of that "being" remaining a creature of your mind. So, does the "being" exist as a temporal "being" or is the "being" just a creature of your mind. If the "being" is just a creature of your mind, then all you are dealing with is your imagination.

For the sake of argument, your confession of believing in a god makes YOUR OWN Atheism a lie. Atheists deny the existence of any god or gods.

 

lol Translation: you are incapable of an explanation.

So flawed and easily debunked and yet you seem unable to articulate a counterargument. Odd. lol

Your name is apt, your post was certainly a nullity.

 

ALL mining and oil operations have been taking core samples for over 100 years..

A core sample is NOT a matter of "faith".

 

ROFL!!!!

Its called the fuedal system not my religion. He's supposed to be KING Aurthur, and the the peasent is rejecting feudalism! Agh, I love it when atheists think they know history.

And atheists are still not a repressed minority because people critcize them. Apply standards of skepticism to their beliefs.

 

Well, there is one.

When a ball of pure eneregy explodes, apparently it is actually inflating.

The universe is actually a souffle!

I mean not point wondering at all about what would cause pure energy to ... inflate into the universe - and we do know that pure eneregy exists.

Science changed to avoid cricticism. Just like aganostic atheism.