ydoaPs

[citation needed]

Know that you do not.

Obligatory xkcd deserves rep. I have reached my limit for the day, so here's some imaginary +rep.

You claimed they make scientific arguments for theism. Show me one. Sure it can be supported. It's a logical consequence of thermodynamics unless you can provide a mechanism for breaking it. While the moderators explicitly refuted this 'point' a few posts back, I copied/merged a few of my posts to make a new thread for you so you can't use this as an excuse any longer. I also made sure to quote your post so that(unless you turned it off), you will get a notification.

You don't have to be omniscient to show that a god does not exist; you just have to make a prediction via theistic theory and falsify it. There are several fact of the universe that falsify the traditional western concept of the deity. Things like humans, reasonable nonbelief, and horrific suffering. On some things, yes. But so does everyone(although, I wouldn't call it 'blind' faith). No one has gone through and thoroughly examined all the evidence for every theory ever. Have you gone through and proved transistor theory or do you believe that transistors work the way the smart people tell you? We're standing on the shoulders of giants, as they say. It's not blind faith, it's trust based on the fact that science works. "SCIENCE! It works, bitches!"-Randall Monroe You cannot extrapolate that his apparent ignorance on one scientific matter means he has no valid reasons for being an atheist. Damn, you beat me to it. Kudos.

And that is why modus tollens and the scientific method are so important. We depend on falsification to eliminate what is NOT true! Those who say "You can't prove a negative!" don't know what they're talking about; science relies on proving negatives and eliminating them from the possible answers. p->q ~q ~p

It's like when WLC claims he can justify (1) of Kalam by inductive inference. Even given a valid method of induction(which is a HUGE given as no one has been able to find one thusfar), this is not the case. To take something from a specific case to a general case, one must have a specific case from which to generalize! We simply have no known instances of something being cause to exist ex nihilo. Any claim of induction on this matter is either ignorance or equivocation. Conservation laws combined with several cosmological models do infact suggest that the universe COULD have an infinite past. However, even if the universe began to exist ex nihilo, it does not imply it had a cause. If the total energy of universe is zero(which the cosmological background radiation data suggests), then the universe very well could have popped into existence causelessly. So, what he have here is that (1) is completely unsupported and (2) could go either way. Kalam isn't a scientific argument; it merely pretends to be. Cypress, since Kalam obviously isn't the scientific argument for theism that you claimed theists use, care to provide the one you claimed exists?

You're too late. Tyson already explained them; He's God.

It's pretty much a given that FOX would be trumping it up as home-grown terrorism if he were a Muslim. Hell, if the congresswoman was a R instead of D, Glenn Beck would flip out more than usual about the nazi socialist communist stalinist jihadist God-hating constitution ignoring Left....probably with more fake tears.

Good thing the shooter wasn't a Muslim, then it would suddenly be terrorism.

It actually is unless you want to redefine the supernatural as being material. Supernatural, by definition, is outside the confines of science.

That's a great point. +rep to you, sir.

Yes, yes it could. And that's a sample size of? Golly, you know, if we can go by anecdotes and confirmation bias, I guess we can say that theists ARE idiots. I mean, I've read a few hundred posts at CARM, so that sample size should be enough. Oh, wait....

An idiot troll means atheists are dogmatic? I'm thinking there might be some confirmation bias going on here. How, exactly does said troll contradict what I said?

The billboards aren't about god(s) as much as they use religion as a vehicle for their point. The real message is hope; hope for the hidden. They're trying to make people know that they're not alone in not believing. They want people to know it's ok to 'come out' as an atheist. The gay rights comparison is very apt. You didn't originally claim it was a religion because it was about god(s), but because of their methods. The secondary purpose of the billboards is to attempt to have people stop and think. They want you to actually critically think about your religion. They even want you to examine the automatic unearned respect opinions get once you say they're part of your religion. Which billboard(s) do you find objectionable and why? They are? Perhaps you could provide some of the dogma then. Nah, I'll do it for you. Given P as the set of all people and T as the subset of P which contains all theists, atheists are A where A=P-T. That's it. That's all they necessarily in common. Atheism cannot be a religion, because there are no doctrines. There are new agist atheists, rationalist atheists, anti-realist atheists, Buddhist atheists, and even solipsist atheists. There's even debate among what it even means to be an atheist; some atheists aren't content with the above general definition and claim that you're only an atheist if you claim that no gods exist. Atheism isn't a worldview; it is a metaphysical response that informs a worldview.

Names have been changed to protect the guilty: [15:50] <Sylar> Capn_Refsmmat, apparently anything trying to change people's minds is a religion [15:50] <Capn_Refsmmat> BillyBobJoJack reported that post [15:50] <Sylar> of course he did [15:50] <Sylar> wait...reported? [15:51] <Sylar> he's moved from unnecessary neg reg to unnecessary reporting? [15:51] <Capn_Refsmmat> indeed [15:52] <Capn_Refsmmat> apparently your post was a strawman, I think [15:52] <Sylar> um, not really [15:52] <Capn_Refsmmat> yeah, I know [15:53] <Sylar> i think it's funny how much of a little kid he is [15:53] <Capn_Refsmmat> but let this be a formal warning to not make posts like the one BillyBobJoJack thinks you made, despite you not actually making it [15:53] <Sylar> kk [15:53] <Sylar> can we add that to spork's randq? [15:55] <Capn_Refsmmat> spork: randstuff <Capn_Refsmmat> but let this be a formal warning to not make posts like the one BillyBobJoJack thinks you made, despite you not actually making it [15:55] <spork> Capn_Refsmmat, werd! There be 7077 randomstuffs now. [15:56] <Gilded> My head hurts from reading that

I seemed to miss the part where you proved anything.

Yeah, have fun ordering such massive quantities of uranium. I hope you have more than one ball mill and centrifuge. Oh, and a couple of million dollars. Once you get it weapons grade, have fun figuring out the geometry. It's simply not a feasible home project.

So, gay rights is a religion? Apparently Bill has used this line several times before: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370183/january-06-2011/bill-o-reilly-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson "Neil Degrasse Tyson is GOD!!!!" <= sounds about right.

Why are his 'delusions' so accurate? Perhaps you'd like to post in this thread your derivation of time dilation using the Electric Universe model. In case you didn't know, time dilation is not only a prediction of relativity, but it is also an observed fact.

Removing the first letter makes it a palindrome, though.

I was talking more about. "SCIENTISTS ARE NAZI MORONS!!!!!!!" etc. No rabbit trails.