Are you an atheist?

[Rich]

So what is Mass?

A catholic ritual..................

 

[Mike375]

Gravity is created by Mass, that's not the Catholic Mass by the way

Make up your mind

 

[Rabbie]

Of course I can't. The only thing I can do is observe that the scientific type articles claim mass is not the cause of gravity. Thus, I have faith that mass is not the cause of gravity. Whatever research I do in this area will always end in me having to have faith in what I read or am told.

As a rational person I just wanted to know why I should trust( have faith in) that source. I have never had an issue with having faith. I am just a little confused why you think it is so important in this debate. It does not prove the case one way or the other.

 

[Mike375]

Rabbie,

The point is that either atheist or supernatural requires faith.

Atheists try and pretend their postion is all based on certified facts. One only has to look at Rich's postings to see he has made one of the greatest leaps of faith of all time I have posted a few extracts from Hawking and Davies of stuff that is right out of la la land. They openly admit that the science all stops at the Big Bang. They even go one stage further and eliminate things that would give wrong conclusions. The complete opposite to what Alisa pushes.

If you are going to be all scientific then what do you do for information. The answer is that you can only have faith that the physicists will get the answer. I have no problem with that, as long as atheists admit they are depending on faith. I have been on that side of the fence before and will undoubtedly come back to that side again and then to the other side.

Hawking, Davies and Co and the Big Bang was probably the main thing that returned me to the supernatural side of the fence. But if things change in that department then I could jump over the fence again.

At the present time lots of faith is required to support the physicists getting the answer because they say all physics breaks down at the Big Bang. If the physicists say all physics breaks down at the Big Bang then what is the most logical answer.

One doubt I have about the Big Bang is that not all science agrees and I sometimes wonder if there was indirect funding from the religious end of town. This could be me being cynical but the supernatural side of the fence had the big gain from Big Bang.

 

[Rabbie]

Atheists try and pretend their postion is all based on certified facts. One only has to look at Rich's postings to see he has made one of the greatest leaps of faith of all time I have posted a few extracts from Hawking and Davies of stuff that is right out of la la land. They openly admit that the science all stops at the Big Bang. They even go one stage further and eliminate things that would give wrong conclusions. The complete opposite to what Alisa pushes.

Clearly not true of all atheists. Some including myself have reached their position on the basis of the balance of probabilities.

If you are going to be all scientific then what do you do for information. The answer is that you can only have faith that the physicists will get the answer. I have no problem with that, as long as atheists admit they are depending on faith. I have been on that side of the fence before and will undoubtedly come back to that side again and then to the other side.

It sounds as if you are standing astride the fence - a position neither comfortable nor dignified.

One doubt I have about the Big Bang is that not all science agrees and I sometimes wonder if there was indirect funding from the religious end of town. This could be me being cynical but the supernatural side of the fence had the big gain from Big Bang.

The alternative to the big bang theory was the Steady State Theory which held that as matter expanded out of sight new matter was spontaneously created. One of its main proponents was Prof Fred Hoyle who was not very convinced by evolution and produced the infamous hurricane in a scrapyard argument against evolution. This argument stated that since a hurricane in a scrapyard would not assemble a 747 evolution could not work.

 

[Rich]

Make up your mind

I have, it's you that has a problem understanding logic

 

[Mike375]

Gravity is created by Mass, that's not the Catholic Mass by the way

Again, make up your mind

 

[Mike375]

Rabbie,

Thanks for your response.

Quote:
Atheists try and pretend their postion is all based on certified facts. One only has to look at Rich's postings to see he has made one of the greatest leaps of faith of all time I have posted a few extracts from Hawking and Davies of stuff that is right out of la la land. They openly admit that the science all stops at the Big Bang. They even go one stage further and eliminate things that would give wrong conclusions. The complete opposite to what Alisa pushes.

Clearly not true of all atheists. Some including myself have reached their position on the basis of the balance of probabilities.

That is the only way it can be done. You appear to be similar to myself in the sense that you don't look for "answers" to support a position.


Quote:
If you are going to be all scientific then what do you do for information. The answer is that you can only have faith that the physicists will get the answer. I have no problem with that, as long as atheists admit they are depending on faith. I have been on that side of the fence before and will undoubtedly come back to that side again and then to the other side.

It sounds as if you are standing astride the fence - a position neither comfortable nor dignified.

I move from one side to the other side. As you can tell from my postings I do not sit in the middle. I do have a preference for no God as I don't like having to answer to a supernatural. But my preference is not strong and simply because I think answering to a supernatural would be completely unlike the way it would be on Earth. However, having been self employed since I was 22 and now age 60.....I don't warm to the idea of a god To make matters worse my late father was self employed as was his father...my mother's brother and her father were self employed. In other words I could be in the shit with God or a god

Quote:
One doubt I have about the Big Bang is that not all science agrees and I sometimes wonder if there was indirect funding from the religious end of town. This could be me being cynical but the supernatural side of the fence had the big gain from Big Bang.

The alternative to the big bang theory was the Steady State Theory which held that as matter expanded out of sight new matter was spontaneously created. One of its main proponents was Prof Fred Hoyle who was not very convinced by evolution and produced the infamous hurricane in a scrapyard argument against evolution. This argument stated that since a hurricane in a scrapyard would not assemble a 747 evolution could not work.

Yes, I am well aware of Steady State and Fred Hoyle.

I try to be as objective as I can. For example, I am fully convinced that 1 in every 100 or 1000 or 10000, whatever the number is, of mutations will occur when the environment is right for them to live and reproduce. However, I think evolution is extreme and because of funding it has to hold to a particular line. In my opinion the "lizard to snake" does not cancel evolution, it just means that evolution might need to branch out a bit. Evolutionists tend to be locked into a to b to c to d to e to f etc. Evolutionists are as dogmatic as the Bible thumpers. However, I don't think evolution has much relevance to a supernatural that could start the universe.

As to probabilities, I think that weighs in favour of a supernatural. Perhaps the supernatural could be some yet undiscovered laws of physics...I don't know. What we do know is the theoretical physics people bail out at the Big Bang. But there is always the possibility that Big Bang is funded by the religious. My feeling is that even if the religious end of town funded Big Bang, the theory/calculations were there and religious funding just lifted the profile. In other words, religious funding did not order Big Bang, just capitalised on it, expanded on it and etc. and etc.

 

[Mike375]

I have, it's you that has a problem understanding logic

Explain your logic....and if all you can do is post a link, don't bother. Surely a time must come when you have an opinion yourself.

 

[Rabbie]

That is the only way it can be done. You appear to be similar to myself in the sense that you don't look for "answers" to support a position.

To clarify I don't need definite answers not to believe. I would need definite answers to have a positive belief in the absolute truth of something. In human culture there are/have been many gods. I differ from the Christian/Muslim/Judaic stance in believing in one less than they do.

I move from one side to the other side. As you can tell from my postings I do not sit in the middle. I do have a preference for no God as I don't like having to answer to a supernatural. But my preference is not strong and simply because I think answering to a supernatural would be completely unlike the way it would be on Earth. However, having been self employed since I was 22 and now age 60.....I don't warm to the idea of a god To make matters worse my late father was self employed as was his father...my mother's brother and her father were self employed. In other words I could be in the shit with God or a god

I have never come across any church teaching that is opposed to people being self-employed.

I try to be as objective as I can. For example, I am fully convinced that 1 in every 100 or 1000 or 10000, whatever the number is, of mutations will occur when the environment is right for them to live and reproduce. However, I think evolution is extreme and because of funding it has to hold to a particular line. In my opinion the "lizard to snake" does not cancel evolution, it just means that evolution might need to branch out a bit. Evolutionists tend to be locked into a to b to c to d to e to f etc. Evolutionists are as dogmatic as the Bible thumpers. However, I don't think evolution has much relevance to a supernatural that could start the universe.

My understanding of evolution is that is caused by many very small mutations which are advantageous. My reasons for this are that a small change has a 50% chance of being advantageous while a large change is very unlikely to be advantageous. To illustrate what I mean when tuning in a badly tuned radio a small adjustment will either get it better or worse while a large change even in the right direction is likely to overshoot and make things worse.

In the case of lizard->snake there is a lack of fossils due to the fragile nature of snake skeletons,which makes it hard to say what the exact path was. With more evidence we would see a clearer explanation of how it occurred.

As has been stated much earlier in this thread changes are much more gradual than our human minds like to accept. In the trail from apes to hominids to Homo sapiens there was never a huge change from one generation to the next. each generation looked much the same as its parents even if its brain was slightly larger or it it was slightly better at bipedal motion.

 

[Rich]

if all you can do is post a link, don't bother.

Why not? you do

 

[Rich]

However, having been self employed since I was 22 and now age 60.....I don't warm to the idea of a god To make matters worse my late father was self employed as was his father...my mother's brother and her father were self employed. In other words I could be in the shit with God or a god

What the f***'* being self employed got to do with believing/not believing in a god?

 

[Darth Vodka]

In the trail from apes to hominids to Homo sapiens there was never a huge change from one generation to the next. each generation looked much the same as its parents even if its brain was slightly larger or it it was slightly better at bipedal motion.

humans are apes, they didn't evolve from apes

 

[Rabbie]

humans are apes, they didn't evolve from apes

True. What I meant to say that humans and hominids evolved from an ape which is also a common ancestor to present day apes. Present day apes are of course our cousins. I apologise for using a bit of short hand in the interests of brevity

 

[Mike375]

My understanding of evolution is that is caused by many very small mutations which are advantageous. My reasons for this are that a small change has a 50% chance of being advantageous while a large change is very unlikely to be advantageous.

Millions of years of gradual change is a problem with lizard to snake and any other case where it is not half an eye compared to no eyes. I favour the scientists that are for spikes on the graph, which does not exclude the very small changes. Mutations that are large will fail 99.99% but there would have been times when the environment allowed for such a mutation to do well.

To illustrate what I mean when tuning in a badly tuned radio a small adjustment will either get it better or worse while a large change even in the right direction is likely to overshoot and make things worse.

Until one day there is a fequency being broadcast that just happens to match where the big change on the tuner landed.

In the case of lizard->snake there is a lack of fossils due to the fragile nature of snake skeletons,which makes it hard to say what the exact path was. With more evidence we would see a clearer explanation of how it occurred.

To go from very good jaws (I know how a big lizard can bite) to millions of years with usless jaws is the big problem. But large mutation at the right time, perhaps 2 or large mutations, could be the answer. The other answer is the original starting point. This is where evolution is currently lacking......no idea on how life started. It could be that the snake evolved from a very early form of life that lent itself to smoothly evolve to the snake. In other words the snake (and many other animals) simply don't trace back 100s of millions of years but had their start much later. I am on the side of "life could start" where the conditions for life prevail.

In the trail from apes to hominids to Homo sapiens there was never a huge change from one generation to the next. each generation looked much the same as its parents even if its brain was slightly larger or it it was slightly better at bipedal motion.

Change from ape through to man is easy to see and suits perfectly the Richard Dawkins story.

 

[Mike375]

Why not? you do

I post opinions and sometimes add a link.

 

[Mike375]

What the f***'* being self employed got to do with believing/not believing in a god?

You would notice I had the smiley faces.

 

[Rich]

I post opinions and sometimes add a link.

Then what's good for the goose is good for the gander

 

[Rich]

You would notice I had the smiley faces.

I still don't see where it fits in

 

[Rabbie]

My understanding of evolution is that is caused by many very small mutations which are advantageous. My reasons for this are that a small change has a 50% chance of being advantageous while a large change is very unlikely to be advantageous.

Millions of years of gradual change is a problem with lizard to snake and any other case where it is not half an eye compared to no eyes. I favour the scientists that are for spikes on the graph, which does not exclude the very small changes. Mutations that are large will fail 99.99% but there would have been times when the environment allowed for such a mutation to do well.

To illustrate what I mean when tuning in a badly tuned radio a small adjustment will either get it better or worse while a large change even in the right direction is likely to overshoot and make things worse.

Until one day there is a fequency being broadcast that just happens to match where the big change on the tuner landed.

In the case of lizard->snake there is a lack of fossils due to the fragile nature of snake skeletons,which makes it hard to say what the exact path was. With more evidence we would see a clearer explanation of how it occurred.

To go from very good jaws (I know how a big lizard can bite) to millions of years with usless jaws is the big problem. But large mutation at the right time, perhaps 2 or large mutations, could be the answer. The other answer is the original starting point. This is where evolution is currently lacking......no idea on how life started. It could be that the snake evolved from a very early form of life that lent itself to smoothly evolve to the snake. In other words the snake (and many other animals) simply don't trace back 100s of millions of years but had their start much later. I am on the side of "life could start" where the conditions for life prevail.

In the trail from apes to hominids to Homo sapiens there was never a huge change from one generation to the next. each generation looked much the same as its parents even if its brain was slightly larger or it it was slightly better at bipedal motion.

Change from ape through to man is easy to see and suits perfectly the Richard Dawkins story.

Mike, I stated my position. You are at liberty to believe what you want. My post makes it clear that I do not believe that the present theory of evolution is the final answer. More evidence for the actual paths is clearly needed. As far as I am concerned the gradualist approach to evolution appears the most likely. The odds against a macro change occuring in one generation just seem too great for me. I can't make that leap of faith.