Here’s a look at 50 of the most prominent atheists of all time who also happen to be recognized as some of the most brilliant members of our species.
Here’s a fun exercise: who’s missing, and why?
Here’s a look at 50 of the most prominent atheists of all time who also happen to be recognized as some of the most brilliant members of our species.
Here’s a fun exercise: who’s missing, and why?
Neo, I’m sorry if you felt I was making an ad hominem attack against you. My intention was to point out that anyone who advocates bad science isn’t much of a scientist.
This was my understanding of the ID hypothesis. If there is some other train of thought amongst the ID fraternity, I should be interested in hearing it.
AR
But “It’s the other white meat”! And what about those mad cows? The pork thing was sooo last millennium.
Whutthole asked:
“How can something being subatomic in the absence of that which is atomic?”
Response: Good question, but it’s one you need to pose to those theorists, it’s their word not mine.
Whutthole continues to embarass himself:
“Question two: If there is no designer, then the universe is therefore an accident.
Sorry but those aren’t the only two options. Furthermore the term accident has no meaning in this context”
Response: Okay, Whutthole, give us at least a third option. And if accident does not apply, by definition, it must be at least a manipulated circumstance. Baffle ‘em with bullshit, right? As you prove very well will this vomit:
“Secondly, your question about chance is not possible to answer because it is based upon a misunderstanding of what probability is. All probabilistic calculations depend upon the ignorance of the observe. Change the a-priori ignorance of a given observer and the probability of an event changes. If all is known then the probability for an event in question is one – you know with certainty what will happen. So if an event has already occurred … well you fill in the blank.”
Response: The outcome you desire is affected by the bullshit you feed the observer? Typical, whutthole, diarrhea of the mouth. Psuedointellectual smoke and mirrors. Works well when the only point you have on the top of your skull.
NeoWolfe
dfled said,
“This was my understanding of the ID hypothesis. If there is some other train of thought amongst the ID fraternity, I should be interested in hearing it.”
Response: You know that I have never said that atheists are wrong. All I have ever said is that they are premature in making a decision about ID. We all agree that religion is bullshit mythology, but what I have always said is that that alone does not disprove ID. You can believe in evolution, as any sane person does, but it does not explain the function in nature where life spontaneously appears and evolves where conditions allow. You can believe in the big bang, but it does not answer the question of how the celestial seed came to be. All I have ever been saying is that only sane answer to the big questions is, “I don’t know”. Anyone who pretends to know is arrogantly naive.
NeoWolfe
Neo said:
That alone? Nothing can “disprove” ID. It’s an unfalsifiable assertion.
Nothing premature in making that decision about it. It’s the only sane decision to make.
NotSoFast
Neowolfe
Can you point me to a peer reviewed cosmology journal article that suggests that “a sub atomic particle really could contain all space, time, matter, and energy” as you wrote?
That the universe evolved from deterministic laws. No conscious designer is invoked or necessary. Since the evolution is deterministic then no accident has occurred.
That is not what I wrote. What I wrote is that the probabilities one calculates for the events of a system are dependent upon the knowledge of that system. If you are going to argue against that assertion then you should know that you a disagreeing with Baye’s Theorem. One what basis are you doing that?
Hmmmmmm
Whutthole, I am so tired of wasting my time with your psuedointelectual arguments. I’ve made an idiot out of you fifty times at least. Yet, you still haunt me like you have a point beside the one on the top of your skull.
history channel big bang
If you find your scientific peace, please keep it to yourself.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe
Why will you not answer my questions as I have your’s?
Neowolfe
Hmmmm. I don’t think asking for proof of your assertion that Cosmologists use the language or make the claims you have would qualify as pseudo-intellectual. Do you? Asking you to justify your implicit claim that Baye’s Theorem is incorrect wouldn’t qualify as pseudo-intellectual .. would it? Hmmmmm.
Now THAT is funny! Thanks for the laugh.
NotSoSmart said:
“It’s an unfalsifiable assertion.” Exactly my point grasshopper. If you believe something is false, yet cannot present convincing evidence that it is false, you are guilty of religion.
NeoWolfe
Whutthole quotes me and comments:
“I’ve made an idiot out of you fifty times at least.
Now THAT is funny! Thanks for the laugh.”
Response: Shall we start with the definition of schizoid and go from there?
You should have quit while you were still a mushroom.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe
What I think you should do is answer my questions. I have answered yours. Is that fair?
Here’s Whutthole’s third option, (and he calls me religious, lol) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
I think the christians call it providence.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe
I wrote nothing of the PHILOSOPHY of determinism. I wrote about deterministic laws. Should I explain the difference or do you understand now?
Oh and as far as that third option that I supplied you with …. you’re welcome.
Neowolfe
I did? I may have, in threads long past, written that I see evidence that you have not fully escaped the irrational shackles of your past but I don’t recall writing that you are religious. I could be wrong though. Please show me.
Whutthole said:
” If you are going to argue against that assertion then you should know that you a disagreeing with Baye’s Theorem. One what basis are you doing that?”
Response: On the basis that Baye’s Theorem is based upon probability. In the case of the big bang, you have one event, not millions of them. And if there were millions of big bangs through time where I eventually encountered an asshole bigot like you, it defies accepted science, because even if the universe collapses back on itself, the emitted energy is lost forever. Just a giant cold black hole.
Unless, of course, the edge of space stops accelerating away from the epicenter of the big bang, and becomes a barrier reflecting energy back into the collapsing envelope. LOL, okay Whutthole, after a billion tries, the big bang finally stumbles on spontaneous life. I’ll buy it. Only I’ve already said it. I have never said that atheists are wrong, I just said they made a premature assumption.
So, Whutthole, despite all evidence to the contrary, you believe that the big bang has happened so many times that bayes theorum actually applies? Far be it from me to call you wrong. It’s not what I do. I just admit I don’t know, and try to keep learning.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe
Millions are not necessary. You misunderstand Bayes Theorem and the Bayesian perspective on probability. Bayes Theorem, in words, simply accounts for different levels of ignorance about a system and shows how one should modify probabilities based upon that ignorance. The fact that probabilities are involved does not imply that a large number of repeated trials of an experiment. Read up on the Bayesian perspective of probability. After all as you have said of yourself “I just admit I don’t know, and try to keep learning.”
Now as far as that third option – I gave you one. Will you now cease making assertions like the one in question which read “If there is no designer, then the universe is therefore an accident.”
… or do you need a fourth option.
Whutthole said,
“Now as far as that third option – I gave you one. Will you now cease making assertions like the one in question which read “If there is no designer, then the universe is therefore an accident.”
Response: The Church of Reality is to freethought as your third option is to providence. A new wrapper on an old idea. In your case the idea is that some property exists in the universe that makes things unfold in a certain way. While I don’t necessarily disagree with that, since life evidently tends to spontaneously generate in any environment where conditions exist to allow it, it is not a third option, it is one of the two I already named, that the universe was manipulated. That it is not a random explosion of chaos, but more like a set of circumstances thrust into motion with controlled properties.
So the answer to your question is, “NO”. I do not concede to the idea of a third option. Nor a fourth. You can rewrap the two options any way you want but, there are still only two. Accident or manipulation.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe
I gave you a third option and you would like to pretend that I didn’t. Suit yourself.