[NGTM-1R]

mmmm isnt balck just made up of red or blue pigments

Depends on if it's additive or subtractive color.

[TrashMan]

I still don't quite understand how you can logically prove that a God can either exist or not exist. Can someone explain?

http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/

Explains it much better than I could.

And tells nothing interesting really. I find their claim that they "proved" ( ) that God cannot exist hilarious.

[Polpolion]

So I understand what strong atheism is, as opposed to weak atheism, and I understand how it actually is possible to prove negatives, but is it even possible to try and prove the positive, in this situation? I've skimmed the arguments supporting the statement that God doesn't exist, but I don't think that if a God exists, a conventional, rational human thought process such as this would be able to grasp the specifics of that God. Those arguments assume too much about what God could be to make an accurate judgment.

I think I understand what they're trying to say, but in all honesty, I still think it's possible that a God may very well exist, even if on a level that can't quite be comprehended.

In essence, I still don't think anyone really knows enough to tell show beyond reasonable doubt that God can or can't exist.

[Mars]

I'm an agnostic, the only thing that I believe is that there's not enough information to make an informed decision on the existence, or lack thereof of anything transphysical or epistemological. And yet I've been told it's a "religion" how does anyone figure that?

Prolly because of the bolded part.

I also believe that I live in the United States, on the planet Earth. I also have evidence for that. Does believing in the existence of the planet make it a religion? Religion requires more than belief.

I also have evidence that God, god, goddess, etc are unprovable, and untouchable.

I have literally no FAITH, I have no community that revolves around agnosticism or atheism, there is no system that I look to for guidance concerning my beleif

[Polpolion]

Belief does not imply faith.

[Mika]

Just when I thought I would finally get the answer who the **** invented the god-damn tie and thought it would be a good idea, it all goes back to Ancient Egyptians and probably beyond that. Would be about time to transcend from that historical piece of ****.

Why is Religion such a persisting topic here? I have seen enough of deranged religious people (families destroyed, suicides etc.) during my life to abstain from any of it and use common sense instead. Non-religious people then are just as deranged as the religious people, but for different reasons. Where non-religious people lose all their money by gambling, religious people lose it to church and so on.

But this religion whacking with logic starts to sound religion all by itself.

EDIT: People can believe whatever the hell they want. It is only when they start to push it to somebody else what irks me. If they made their life a misery by believing to it, why should everybody else suffer with them?

Mika

[Polpolion]

Well this was a pleasant discussion until Mr. Unitarian showed up.

[captain-custard]

but  the easter bunny , tooth fairy and santa claus are just 3 parts of the same person so ill stick with my approach in the true sense of sabellainism

[Mika]

My next question would be that who invented the current shape of men's suit and why? I mean the shoulder padding!?!

And who was the genius who thought it would be a good idea to outsource production from homeland to cheaper places?

Maybe it would be more fruitful (and hilarious) to discuss the bad inventions? Maybe we could all learn something from them (when cows start to fly).

Mika

[Scuddie]

http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/

Explains it much better than I could.

I lol'd.

That's not atheism, that's stupidity.

[Rick James]

http://www.strongatheism.net/faq/

Explains it much better than I could.

I lol'd.

That's not atheism, that's stupidity.

Logic, or GTFO.

[terran_emperor]

Oh God! What have i created?

Okay who invented the Lock and the Key?

[captain-custard]

probably the egyptians about 4000 years ago and it was wooden; and the first "padlock" by the romans

[Uchuujinsan]

Hm, about the question "what is atheism"  - lets just check wikipedia, basically theres nearly everything said that needs to be said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Note: Either I misunderstood Karas definition of Atheism, or I have to disagree.

[TrashMan]

I also believe that I live in the United States, on the planet Earth. I also have evidence for that. Does believing in the existence of the planet make it a religion? Religion requires more than belief.

I didn't say athism is the same as religion, I only said why someone might think that based on your wording.

Atheism is faith/belief in something you can't prove (non-existance of God), so it does have some similarities with religion.

I have literally no FAITH, I have no community that revolves around agnosticism or atheism, there is no system that I look to for guidance concerning my beleif

You do have a community - atheistic sites prove that. You do have guidance - other atheists. People or books you trust.

But this religion whacking with logic starts to sound like religion all by itself.

It does, doesn't it. It happens when people believe strongly enough in a idea.

Just to get pedantic, the Big Bang doesn't actually violate laws of thermodynamics, and it's certainly not 'something from nothing.' There are many physical mechanisms -- spontaneous symmetry breaking, M-brane theory, so on -- which have been advanced to explain the Horrendous Space Kablooie.

I've been doing research regarding the big Bang and I've yet to see a sensible theory. Not one of them (yet) holds water.
Not to mention that it raises the question of "what happened before".
If there was no time and space, no matter, then the question comes - from where did it all come from. The universe cannot create itself without breaking a kazzilion of it's own laws. The universe, not being supernatural, cannot do that.

[General Battuta]

No offense, Trash, but you don't know enough math to determine whether any of these theories 'hold water'.

Understanding the Big Bang requires the unification of relativity and quantum theory, which hasn't yet been achieved. That's why scientists are hard at work on new models, and why we need the LHC.

Armchair physicists definitely aren't able to handle this stuff, yourself and myself included.

Are you familiar with vacuum states? Branes?

[TrashMan]

I believe other physicists who point out the holes...

For example - the rubber universe theory (a universe is constantly expanding them coming together in one point, etc..) has been proven wrong by pointing out that the galaxies are moving away too fast for gravity to bring them back together.

[Mars]

Moving away from what exactly?

[karajorma]

Note: Either I misunderstood Karas definition of Atheism, or I have to disagree.

Ummm. Mine is basically the same as Wikipedia's so what do you disagree with me about?

I believe other physicists who point out the holes...

Very few of whom would agree with your conclusions.

For example - the rubber universe theory (a universe is constantly expanding them coming together in one point, etc..) has been proven wrong by pointing out that the galaxies are moving away too fast for gravity to bring them back together.

Incorrect. The theory of the Big Crunch is considered less likely now than it was 10 years ago but it most definitely has not been proved false. Given that dark matter is responsible for causing the acceleration and no one knows what exactly dark matter is, it's pretty stupid to state with any certainty that it will continue to be a driving force forever.

I found you to be wrong after 30 seconds on Wikipedia so I really do question how deeply you've looked into this.

[TrashMan]

Very few of whom would agree with your conclusions.

They don't have to. I bet that there's plenty of scientists who don't agree wiht some of your conclusions or another. That is irrelevant.
I agree with theirs - that is relevant.

Incorrect. The theory of the Big Crunch is considered less likely now than it was 10 years ago but it most definitely has not been proved false. Given that dark matter is responsible for causing the acceleration and no one knows what exactly dark matter is, it's pretty stupid to state with any certainty that it will continue to be a driving force forever.

I found you to be wrong after 30 seconds on Wikipedia so I really do question how deeply you've looked into this.

When I say wrong I mean not right.
You admit it yourself that the big Crunch theory is not proven right, and things standing as they are now, it is wrong.
Some future scientific discoveries or breaktroughs that might change things are irrelevant at this time.
For now, according to current calculations, the universe will not come back together.