Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by olias, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. stu

    stu

    It's been said before, scientists are not like your priest. A scientist's work is always subject to continuous rigorous critical analysis .

    Those are scientists' thoughts and comments you've posted, not their scientific work.

    What are you people so threatened and worried about in science that you have to misinterpret, misunderstand and misquote it all the time?

    By doing so y'all only tying to keep a gap open for a personal supernatural creator. At least be honest about it.
     
    #271     Nov 17, 2010
  2. #272     Nov 17, 2010
  3. jem

    jem


    why don't you be honest about it.

    for years you said science said there was no evidence of design. So I gave you a few quotes from top scientists.

    You firmly stated all the time to everyone who was listening that I was lying about the meaning of their quotes. Even when I gave you plain English. So now I give you more quotes from more nobel prize winners and other top scientists and you come back with a new meaningless statement --- since you can't argue with science you are claiming I am misquoting - yet you offer not proof of misquotes.

    Stu, when are you going to get tired of being a trog - troll. Get a brain, join those who allow science to inform their understanding.

    Stu vs Science - has turned into the longest standing joke on ET.
    Stu vs. dictionary
    Stu vs. historical experts

    is really Stu vs intelligence and stu vs. reality.

    Stu will do, say or believe anything to protect is atheist world view. A twisted world view in which Stu believes he can prove the non existence of God.
     
    #273     Nov 17, 2010
  4. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Get over yourself stewie.
    If as you say the laws of physics allow for a universe to appear out of nothing, one scenario is as plausible as the other. I'm simply pointing it out.
     
    #274     Nov 17, 2010
  5. #275     Nov 17, 2010
  6. stu

    stu

    #276     Nov 18, 2010
  7. stu

    stu

    You are not quoting science .
    You are merely copying and pasting, usually from religious websites, selected non-scientific comments attributed to scientists.
    You've no substantive argument at all to do with science, or what you call "design", or much of anything else for that matter. Never did. Only absurd ad hominem attacks because your silly arguments have no real substance.
     
    #277     Nov 18, 2010
  8. stu

    stu

    No it isn't crummie. One scenario is pure fiction.
    The other scientific, and the laws of physics allow for it.
    Isn’t it time you got over that dude?
     
    #278     Nov 18, 2010
  9. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Since both scenarios are the same (universe from nothing) which is which?
     
    #279     Nov 18, 2010
  10. Look at this. This is what stu is talking about. I really do not understand this physics, but you can read what the physicists see.



    "Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.

    Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader"

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
     
    #280     Nov 18, 2010