(November 21, 2016 at 4:56 pm)Tonus Wrote: "From universal space-time asymmetry to cosmic coincidences to the intelligibility of reality, Robert Spitzer tackles a wealth of evidence. He considers string theory, quantum cosmology, mathematical thoughts on infinity, and much more."

Looks like he's using a different definition of "proofs."  Could've knocked me over with a feather.

Yeah, Spitzer is utterly unqualified to consider string theory, quantum cosmology, mathematical thoughts on infinity.

Wikipedia Wrote:Spitzer received the degree Bachelor of Business Administration, with a focus on Public Accounting and Finance (magna cum laude) from Gonzaga University in 1974. He then received a master's degree in Philosophy from St. Louis University (magna cum laude) in 1978, a Master of Divinity degree from the Gregorian University in Rome (summa cum laude) in 1983, a Master of Theology degree in Scripture from the Weston School, now the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, (summa cum laude) in 1984, and a Doctor of Philosophy from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC (summa cum laude) in 1988. His dissertation, under , is entitled A Study of Objectively Real Time.

(November 22, 2016 at 10:10 am)Chas Wrote: Yeah, Spitzer is utterly unqualified to consider string theory, quantum cosmology, mathematical thoughts on infinity.

Wikipedia Wrote:Spitzer received the degree Bachelor of Business Administration, with a focus on Public Accounting and Finance (magna cum laude) from Gonzaga University in 1974. He then received a master's degree in Philosophy from St. Louis University (magna cum laude) in 1978, a Master of Divinity degree from the Gregorian University in Rome (summa cum laude) in 1983, a Master of Theology degree in Scripture from the Weston School, now the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, (summa cum laude) in 1984, and a Doctor of Philosophy from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC (summa cum laude) in 1988. His dissertation, under , is entitled A Study of Objectively Real Time.

Wow, what a waste of study time.

That's a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier, Joker. The guy may have degrees pouring out of his arse, but none of them give him any qualification for the subject he writes about. And you want to cite him as an authority?

(November 21, 2016 at 5:31 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 21, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Shell B Wrote: Bit of an elitist cunt, aren't you, buddy?

I'll pass over half the drivel and get to the part where you say atheist marriages involve a lot of fights. Proof positive right here that you're wrong. I was married to a Catholic and we fought constantly. Married to an atheist now, we rarely argue for more than a few short minutes and rarely argue at that. Your assumptions are silly and based on nothing but your own deluded hopes that being an atheist is worse than being a whateverthefuckyouare because if being atheist is not any worse or better in terms of marriage or quality of life, you've been wasting your time. Now, fuck off and come back with some data for your broad and frankly insane claims.

I said "true Christian home". 

Of course you used one of the absolute worst arguments in the troll, I mean Christian, arsenal. No true Christian, huh? Come on, do better. These arguments are old hat. Also, you failed to recognize that my atheist marriage is unusually happy, even compared to your "true Christian" marriages, which don't fucking exist.

(November 22, 2016 at 10:10 am)Chas Wrote: Yeah, Spitzer is utterly unqualified to consider string theory, quantum cosmology, mathematical thoughts on infinity.

Wikipedia Wrote:Spitzer received the degree Bachelor of Business Administration, with a focus on Public Accounting and Finance (magna cum laude) from Gonzaga University in 1974. He then received a master's degree in Philosophy from St. Louis University (magna cum laude) in 1978, a Master of Divinity degree from the Gregorian University in Rome (summa cum laude) in 1983, a Master of Theology degree in Scripture from the Weston School, now the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, (summa cum laude) in 1984, and a Doctor of Philosophy from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC (summa cum laude) in 1988. His dissertation, under , is entitled A Study of Objectively Real Time.

So he is literally a glorified accountant...

(November 21, 2016 at 11:26 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: The real Christian couple that cannot get divorced due to faith:

BTW:

I'm not real skilled at evaluating female faces for some reason (maybe it's due to the homo thing, Idunno) but why does she look like his SISTER ?

The Joker Wrote:I think Atheist forum should be place where everyone can get right deep into atheist thinking and examine them for study.

I'll pretend you're being serious for a moment. It's a place where atheists and well-behaved theist guests can have an online community and interesting discussions. Your idea of what it should be is, frankly, bizarre.

The Joker Wrote:To be honest I Just don’t think Atheism is better than the Christian standard, now before you go on about how I am an idiot and calling me names, consider the following:

Atheism is the state of mind of not holding a belief that any supernatural deity is real. Theism is the opposite state. They are both opinions on a single topic. It is ridiculous to compare an opinion to an ideology or religion. If you want to compare Christianity to something nominally atheistic, I suggest humanism.

The Joker Wrote:[b]Christianit,y on Morality: Morality is objective(Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself). Morality is absolute and unchanging and comes from God, all Men and Women know right from wrong because they are created in Gods image.
Atheism on Morality: Morality is subjective( Subjective moraals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person.) So if the public agreed that killing children from families that have more than one child is okay, then it is actually okay. Jeffrey Dahmer an atheist who was sentenced to prison for 900yrs, He brutally killed seventeen men and boys, dismembering them, storing their parts, and indulging in cannibalism and necrophilia. He said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within a acceptable ranges?”.  If you, as an atheist, say that what is morally good is that which reduces over-all harm, then on what basis do you validate that assertion as being a proper moral standard?

Neither atheism nor theism address any of that. This is what happens when you compare an opinion to a belief system. There are thousands of different theistic religions, but only one theism (believing there is some kind of real deity). There are many atheistic philosophies, but only one atheism (not believing there is some kind of real deity). You're having the wrong discussion in your head. Do you want to talk about a moral philosophy compatible with atheism like humanism or an epistemological philosophy compatible with atheism like rational skepticism? Because then you would be comparing apples to apples, and dealing with what many here actually think. There is nothing in atheism that prevents moral realism, because atheism is only the position that one doesn't believe in God or gods.

The Joker Wrote:Greatest Role model’s for Christianity: Jesus, Mary and the apostles, the martyrs of faith and saints.
Greatest Role model’s for Atheism: Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Napoleon and Jim Jones.

Still pretending you're serious. Hard to do when the obvious counter would be that the greatest role models for Christianity would be Hitler, Torquemada, Lucretia Borgia, and Jim Jones. Because citing villains as role models is asinine, but I've got as much justification for my picks as you have for yours. The role models I pick for atheism are Robert Wilson, Madame Curie, Mark Zuckerberg, Henri Matisse, Sir Richard Burton, Frank Lloyd Wright, and a slew of Nobel Prize winners.

The Joker Wrote:True Christian Family: Family hierarchy the husband the head, children properly disciplined and brought up in the Christian order, Children obey parents and daily worship and pray and visits to church. Peace at home. No divorce rates in a true Christian family.

No True Scotsman fallacy. There would hardly be any Christians left if you only count the families you've just described. I could say atheist families are harmonious, open to learning, with children who grow up to be independent and accomplished; and no divorce rates in a true atheist family; with equal justification.

The Joker Wrote:The Atheistic Family: No family hierarchy but democracy where everyone rules, husband not the head, no family order, no family discipline children rebelling against parents, husbands and wives quarrelling often, wife not obeying & husband not listening. Divorce rates extremely high, moral standards very low-morality is subjective. No peace in the family. Envies against one another.

Since atheism is just an opinion, there's nothing inherent in atheism against reasonable discipline or adults having authority over children. There's zero evidence that they quarrel more, that their divorce rates are high, or that their moral standards are low. Atheists don't have to believe morality is subjective, and moral subjectivity doesn't necessitate low moral standards.

The Joker Wrote:The Atheist agenda:  Self-Righteous, Very high egoticism, Pride is essentially self-worship. Anything we accomplish in this world would not have been possible were it not for God enabling and sustaining us. (Admitting sin and acknowledging that in our own strength we can do nothing to inherit eternal life is a constant stumbling block for prideful people.)

There is no atheist agenda. It's not just your God we don't believe in. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Atheism is an opinion, Christianity is a religion, see the difference? Either compare atheism and theism, or a specific belief system common among atheism to a specific religion. You won't find a belief system we all agree on, just like theists don't have one they all agree with. And you're essentially accusing atheists of not believing in God here. No duh. Self-righteousness, high egotism, pride, and self-worship don't follow from that; though you seem to have some of them covered yourself.

The Joker Wrote:Christianity: To Accomplish God’s will daily, always ready to repent when sinned, striving for humility and meekness. To the carry the cross.

There seems to be a conflict between striving for humility and meekness while claiming to be under direct orders from the creator of the universe and belittling and insulting anyone who doesn't buy into your assertions.

The Joker Wrote:Why Atheists have still not found God: They aren’t looking and second they want to avoid him. Just assuming the God of the Bible is evil without reading within context or based on what other people think.
Main fundamental doctrine of Atheism: The denial of God through lack of belief, Core foundation is self will and trusting in the theory of evolution.

Not all atheists believe the theory of evolution, and if it was struck down tomorrow, that still wouldn't provide a reason to believe God is real unless what struck it down was that new species actually poof into existence out of nothingness...that would be pretty convincing to me. The rest seems to be an equally apt description of why Christians still have not found Brahma (at least the Hindus call their version of God by his proper name, seriously, it's like naming your dog, Dog).

And at this point I'm tired of writing responses to your rant. I doubt I'm the only one who has taken the time to address some of your points. It's not the Poe-ing I mind so much as the inconsiderate posting of a conglomeration of rambling thoughts to wade through.

(November 22, 2016 at 11:51 am)vorlon13 Wrote:

(November 21, 2016 at 11:26 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: The real Christian couple that cannot get divorced due to faith:

BTW:

I'm not real skilled at evaluating female faces for some reason (maybe it's due to the homo thing, Idunno) but why does she look like his SISTER ?

Incest is perfectly fine, according to the bible.

The Joker Wrote:

mh.brewer Wrote:Joker:

Jim Jones, the leader of the "Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ" was a christian. Sorry, you have to own that one. One possible end product of christian faith. 

Napoleon was started out christian also. 

See what that can do to people? It's certainly made you delusional.

Jim Jones, the leader of the "Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ",  said that he “took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism”. 

I see the quote marks, but I don't see a source. I don't see any reason to believe your assertion without a primary source. It sounds like the kind of fabrication Christians are famous for.

The Joker Wrote:If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it, But the atheist may say "BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT Just because we didn't come here by an accident through chance of evolution!" Well in that case if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." With a meaning and a purpose to life.

Your complaint would carry a lot more weight if you could prove we didn't evolve. Btw, evolution is mindless, but not completely dumb: there is an element of chance, but the random part is precisely what natural selection works on to bring non-random results: organisms better adapted to their reproductive environment.

If our evolution did not involve an element of chance or the universe was created by a being, it does not follow that the being (or beings) in question is/are extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, immaterial, or eternal. We could conceivable be creating universes by accident with our particle accelerators without knowing it, for instance...would any inhabitants of such universes be justified in presuming their creator was extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, and eternal? Note that in this scenario, the inhabitants still 'arrived' by evolution.

And the number of scenarios where a being without godlike qualities creates the universe, intentionally or inadvertently, are potentially infinite. What's a good reason why we should dismiss all of those scenarios in favor of yours?

But first, prove that a being created the universe and evolution isn't real, and then we can move on to the specifics of figuring out what actually happened.