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?
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
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.