doG

Steels are often pickled in a solution that contains both hydrochloric and nitric acids. These solutions usually contain some inhibitors as well to protect the clean from attack by the acids. Numerous commercial pickling solutions are available but the recipes for them are guarded secrets.

Imagine the possibility that the observable universe is but a subset of a larger universe beyond our observation capability wherein the observable universe was simply a redistribution of matter that had collapsed in that larger universe, perhaps through a big crunch, and gone through an event we refer to as the big bang. The observable universe may appear to us as a closed system even though it could actually be part of a larger system, a system which could possibly be infinite. I am hesitant to conclude that all we are able to see is all there is simply because it is all we can see. Draw no conclusions before their time.

You need to study a bit more on star formation, supernovea and heavy elements. Stellar fusion of hydrogen and subsequent elements is where all of the elements heavier than oxygen come from. As a carbon based lifeform you are mostly composed of stardust.

No actually. I believe time and matter have existed for eternity. Why believe everything or anything came from nothing?

I tend to disagree. Theists across the web seek out science forums to argue their case. A subforum here is a place to keep it all in one place and out of the mainstream discussion of science topics. It also offers the opportunity to expose these people to skepticism. In my opinion it is OK to some extent if someone wants to and chooses to believe in some higher being but it also important for them to understand that they should question what they are told by others. So many believe for no other reason other than that is what they were told when they were raised. Many were also told(taught) that their belief or faith includes a certain amount of intolerance and hatred of the beliefs of others. This is a disease on society itself and needs to be dealt with through education, particularly the philosophy of science and the scientific method. There is nothing wrong with questioning what we are taught but blind faith can be quite a dangerous thing and everyone should truly understand that it is not a reason to believe in anything. The people who seek out discussions here will not learn that at any of the religious forums they might patronize, only places like these where some of us will engage them.

And what proof of this alleged infinite entity can you show? It's dishonest to ask others to believe in something there is no evidence for.

So. The debate is pointless without a common definition that everyone agrees on so that everyone is talking about the same thing. Is there some reason to think your definition is the right one and everyone else's is wrong?

Define God.....

Like the air around a flying saucer?

Having done this so many times before I'm going to simply quote these posts from the past: and from the etymology of the word atheist: atheist (n.) 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). Notice the a- is simply a not modifier, therefore a-theist simply means not theist in the same way that a-synchronous simply means not-synchronous.

Correction: because some religions don't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why some atheists can also be considered religious. FALSE!!! Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It does not require that you believe there are no deities. The term atheist literally means not-theist, nothing more. There are people who have an affirmative belief that there are in fact deities and they are theist, everyone else is atheist, i.e. not-theist because they are not in the group that believe in deities. They do not have to believe there are no deities, they only need to lack belief that there are. Bottom line: you believe that the existence of one or more deities is a fact or you are atheist.

I tend to disagree with that. I consider myself a 6 on Dawkins scale of theistic probability, a De facto atheist. I don't particularly argue that viewpoint with theists though, I let them believe what they want even if I disagree with it. If they challenge my viewpoint I give them my reasons for not believing as I do. I really don't much care if they agree with me. Many do agree that my position is valid, that it is they that have leapt to an unsupported conclusion on deities.

and the herring even got a +1....

but that right there is key. There's not just a portion of Christians that believe in Christ and his teachings, it's all of them. There's more than just a portion of Islam that believes in and follows the Koran. The same is not true of atheists. They only have one thing in common, they lack belief in deities. No other beliefs, values, morals, ethics, etc. can be said to be true for all atheists. It is not a belief system or a culture. It involves zero worship. It is not religious. There are some atheists that are militant over their lack of belief but that does not make them religious, it makes them militant. There is no need to blur the meaning of the word religion over this. As it stands when one refers to someone as religious it implies a belief in one or more gods. Once you include atheists then the meaning of religion becomes meaningless. This defeats the purpose of having words like 'religion' in the language at all when you redefine them and take away the clarity that exists in the language.

Yes, that is the definition of religion but atheists lack belief of any a superhuman controlling power or a personal God or gods. Now can you see why atheism is not a religion?