"Atheism's universe"

[Audie]

I would appreciate if atheists could point out what is wrong with this picture (if anything).

[url=https://postimg.org/image/yylfp9bvb/]

Even as a thiest I think this is pretty bad picture, filled with strawman arguments.

1. The common consensus would be that the matter always existed. So there would be no "nothing"
2. There is no such thing as an "ordered" universe, that is a loaded word. Theists who believe that are just putting stock in the wrong place. the more we know the more we understand that the universe is chaotic at best and worse mildly chaotic.
3. First signs of life came after first what happened was that chemical reactions happened.
4. False premise...no assistance needed if evolution happens.
5. Non-sequitur ... there is no book which says it has to be so. But this is still the wrong reason, even though it's technically correct. Pattern recognition is at the heart of all living things. in humans its much more enhanced and that has caused our brains to do more, process more but its a step by step procedure. Rationality is not a problem, even a bee can solve distance problems on its own scale. Conscience is not understood right now but there's research in that area incomplete but seems promising - e.g Crocs have big brains but their brains anatomy is different. the biggest portion of their brain is devoted to smell. Humans on the other hand have a lot of their brains working to process vision and perhaps conscience evolved because of a result of that, to distinguish between so much visual input and perhaps some other factors.

I think James Bishop attacked something he didn't understand.

More succinctly, it is dumb and not worth responding to.

[neo-x]

I would appreciate if atheists could point out what is wrong with this picture (if anything).

[url=https://postimg.org/image/yylfp9bvb/]

Even as a thiest I think this is pretty bad picture, filled with strawman arguments.

1. The common consensus would be that the matter always existed. So there would be no "nothing"
2. There is no such thing as an "ordered" universe, that is a loaded word. Theists who believe that are just putting stock in the wrong place. the more we know the more we understand that the universe is chaotic at best and worse mildly chaotic.
3. First signs of life came after first what happened was that chemical reactions happened.
4. False premise...no assistance needed if evolution happens.
5. Non-sequitur ... there is no book which says it has to be so. But this is still the wrong reason, even though it's technically correct. Pattern recognition is at the heart of all living things. in humans its much more enhanced and that has caused our brains to do more, process more but its a step by step procedure. Rationality is not a problem, even a bee can solve distance problems on its own scale. Conscience is not understood right now but there's research in that area incomplete but seems promising - e.g Crocs have big brains but their brains anatomy is different. the biggest portion of their brain is devoted to smell. Humans on the other hand have a lot of their brains working to process vision and perhaps conscience evolved because of a result of that, to distinguish between so much visual input and perhaps some other factors.

I think James Bishop attacked something he didn't understand.

More succinctly, it is dumb and not worth responding to.

But just ot be safe it might help someone who may not know much detail.

[Kurieuo]

To be fair to the James guy, Atheists never put anything on the table when it comes to how it works.

Those who do, do posit something like that, or at least make out the universe came from nothing (e.g., Krauss). Others, start dabbling with a prior metaphysics before the universe was (multiverse) which is now largely in the realm of philosophy.

By far though, the majority of Atheists refuse to say anything except that the known universe is all we know, anything else is speculation. Which to me, seems to be avoidance and not rationally honourable. Especially for an Atheist who would adamantly declare God isn't true, belief in God is foolishness and without any merit which begs the question.

[Kenny]

By far though, the majority of Atheists refuse to say anything except that the known universe is all we know, anything else is speculation. Which to me, seems to be avoidance and not rationally honourable.

But if its the truth, why would you call it avoidance and rationally dishonorable?

Ken

[Audie]

To be fair to the James guy, Atheists never put anything on the table when it comes to how it works.

Those who do, do posit something like that, or at least make out the universe came from nothing (e.g., Krauss). Others, start dabbling with a prior metaphysics before the universe was (multiverse) which is now largely in the realm of philosophy.

By far though, the majority of Atheists refuse to say anything except that the known universe is all we know, anything else is speculation. Which to me, seems to be avoidance and not rationally honourable. Especially for an Atheist who would adamantly declare God isn't true, belief in God is foolishness and without any merit which begs the question.

Maybe you could use a mug up, and then some bed rest?

[Kurieuo]

To be fair to the James guy, Atheists never put anything on the table when it comes to how it works.

Those who do, do posit something like that, or at least make out the universe came from nothing (e.g., Krauss). Others, start dabbling with a prior metaphysics before the universe was (multiverse) which is now largely in the realm of philosophy.

By far though, the majority of Atheists refuse to say anything except that the known universe is all we know, anything else is speculation. Which to me, seems to be avoidance and not rationally honourable. Especially for an Atheist who would adamantly declare God isn't true, belief in God is foolishness and without any merit which begs the question.

Maybe you could use a mug up, and then some bed rest?

Maybe you could do some reading.

[Audie]

To be fair to the James guy, Atheists never put anything on the table when it comes to how it works.

Those who do, do posit something like that, or at least make out the universe came from nothing (e.g., Krauss). Others, start dabbling with a prior metaphysics before the universe was (multiverse) which is now largely in the realm of philosophy.

By far though, the majority of Atheists refuse to say anything except that the known universe is all we know, anything else is speculation. Which to me, seems to be avoidance and not rationally honourable. Especially for an Atheist who would adamantly declare God isn't true, belief in God is foolishness and without any merit which begs the question.

Maybe you could use a mug up, and then some bed rest?

Maybe you could do some reading.

I did, and reported on my findings!

Seriously, you are better than that.

[Kurieuo]

To be fair to the James guy, Atheists never put anything on the table when it comes to how it works.

Those who do, do posit something like that, or at least make out the universe came from nothing (e.g., Krauss). Others, start dabbling with a prior metaphysics before the universe was (multiverse) which is now largely in the realm of philosophy.

By far though, the majority of Atheists refuse to say anything except that the known universe is all we know, anything else is speculation. Which to me, seems to be avoidance and not rationally honourable. Especially for an Atheist who would adamantly declare God isn't true, belief in God is foolishness and without any merit which begs the question.

Maybe you could use a mug up, and then some bed rest?

Maybe you could do some reading.

I did, and reported on my findings!

Seriously, you are better than that.

You are better than that too. No offense was intended, but I feel a smart retort deserved one back, that's all.

[Audie]

To be fair to the James guy, Atheists never put anything on the table when it comes to how it works.

Those who do, do posit something like that, or at least make out the universe came from nothing (e.g., Krauss). Others, start dabbling with a prior metaphysics before the universe was (multiverse) which is now largely in the realm of philosophy.

By far though, the majority of Atheists refuse to say anything except that the known universe is all we know, anything else is speculation. Which to me, seems to be avoidance and not rationally honourable. Especially for an Atheist who would adamantly declare God isn't true, belief in God is foolishness and without any merit which begs the question.

Maybe you could use a mug up, and then some bed rest?

Maybe you could do some reading.

I did, and reported on my findings!

Seriously, you are better than that.

You are better than that too. No offense was intended, but I feel a smart retort deserved one back, that's all.

Well, fair is fair.

But its a bit depressing if that is really how you think.

[Kurieuo]

My goodness, you sound like my wife.

[Audie]

My goodness, you sound like my wife.

Women sound like women. Who knew?

[jenna]

My goodness, you sound like my wife.

[Audie]

My goodness, you sound like my wife.

Another depressing thing about how men really think:

Confronted with that their thinking can be upsetting or depressing to women..
do they apply insight, consider what might actually be wrong with how they are thinking?

No! Blame the women.

(Does someone have a trumpet? Play " CHARGE" so phil will know to rush in and
say I yam playing the victim card )

[Philip]

Audie: Another depressing thing about how men really think:

Confronted with that their thinking can be upsetting or depressing to women..
do they apply insight, consider what might actually be wrong with how they are thinking?

No! Blame the women.

Cynical generalizations about genders aren't terribly helpful. Depressing to WHICH women? On what issue? Do all women think the same things on whatever issue we're referencing? Why always the us against them mentality? Why default to the whole gender war references over a disagreement or misunderstanding with the opposite sex? Maybe, in a particular incident, the woman's' thinking IS off kilter. Or maybe the man is just a clueless clod (sorry, Rick - but he does seem to get a lot of samwiches - supposedly ).

Audie: (Does someone have a trumpet? Play " CHARGE" so phil will know to rush in and say I yam playing the victim card)

No, Audie, not whenever you truly ARE a victim. But if you tend to view yourself as a victim all of the time, you'll often wrongly interpret people through your "victim" lens - which is unfair and harmful to both you and others. Or if you are projecting past hurts upon people who are, in reality, nothing like those that have hurt you in the past and have no harmful intentions whatsoever - but when you are constantly suspicious that some new person might be the very much like that past person who has hurt you - well, again, that's destructive for a person - for ANY person to think like that, to be wary that people are constantly out to get you. Gender wars are so boring and silly. But being respectful and understanding - of course, we all should be so.

[Kurieuo]

My goodness, you sound like my wife.

Another depressing thing about how men really think:

Confronted with that their thinking can be upsetting or depressing to women..
do they apply insight, consider what might actually be wrong with how they are thinking?

No! Blame the women.

Though I don't consider it "blaming", but often just pointing out the "truth".

Sometimes I try to warn beforehand, and then she puts me in my place. Then when goes wrong... it's fun teasing, though sometimes that ends up in a more serious argument. Women really, really hate being wrong.

Perhaps, RickD is right that I'm just too effeminate. Then again, I don't think men really have a corner on "blaming".